User login
Is corporate telepsychiatry the solution to access to care problems?
When Sue W’s mother died in 2018, she struggled terribly. She was already seeing a psychotherapist and was taking duloxetine, prescribed by her primary care physician. But her grief was profound, and her depression became paralyzing. She needed to see a psychiatrist, and there were many available in or near her hometown, a Connecticut suburb of New York City, but neither Sue, her therapist, nor her primary care doctor could find a psychiatrist who participated with her insurance. Finally, she was given the name of a psychiatrist in Manhattan who practiced online, and she made an appointment on the Skypiatrist (a telepsychiatry group founded in 2016) website.
“I hesitated about it at first,” Sue said. “The doctor was nice, and I liked the convenience. Appointments were 15 minutes long, although the first session was longer. He focused on the medications, which was okay because I already have a therapist. And it was really easy. I made appointments on their website and I saw the doctor through the same site, and I really liked that I could send him messages.” The psychiatrist was responsive when Sue had trouble coming off duloxetine, and he gave her instructions for a slower taper. The treatment was affordable and accessible, and she got better.
When you also consider that many private-practice psychiatrists do not participate with insurance panels, online companies that do accept insurance may add value, convenience, and access.
Cerebral, the largest online psychiatric service in the country, began seeing patients in January 2020, offering medications and psychotherapy. They participate with a number of commercial insurers, and this varies by state, but not with Medicaid or Medicare. Patients pay a monthly fee, and an initial 30-minute medication evaluation session is conducted, often with a nurse practitioner. They advertise wait times of less than 7 days.
Another company, Done, offers treatment specifically for ADHD. They don’t accept insurance for appointments; patients must submit their own claims for reimbursement. Their pricing structure involves a fee of $199 for the first month, then $79 a month thereafter, which does not include medications. Hims – another online company – targets men with a variety of health issues, including mental health problems.
Some of these internet companies have been in the news recently for concerns related to quality of care and prescribing practices. A The Wall Street Journal article of March 26, 2022, quoted clinicians who had previously worked for Cerebral and Done who left because they felt pressured to see patients quickly and to prescribe stimulants. Not all of the prescribers were unhappy, however. Yina Cruz-Harris, a nurse practitioner at Done who has a doctorate in nursing practice, said that she manages 2,300 patients with ADHD for Done. Virtually all are on stimulants. She renews each patient’s monthly prescription from her New Jersey home, based mostly on online forms filled out by the patients. She’s fast, doing two renewals per minute, and Done pays her almost $10 per patient, working out to around $20,000 in monthly earnings.
In May, the Department of Justice began looking into Cerebral’s practices around controlled substances and more recently, Cerebral has been in the news for complaints from patients that they have been unable to reach their prescribers when problems arise. Some pharmacy chains have refused to fill prescriptions for controlled medications from online telehealth providers, and some online providers, including Cerebral, are no longer prescribing controlled substances. A front-page The Wall Street Journal article on Aug. 19, 2022, told the story of a man with a history of addiction who was prescribed stimulants after a brief appointment with a prescriber at Done. Family and friends in his sober house believe that the stimulants triggered a relapse, and he died of an opioid overdose.
During the early days of the pandemic, nonemergency psychiatric care was shut down and we all became virtual psychiatrists. Many of us saw new patients and prescribed controlled medications to people we had never met in real life.
“John Brown,” MD, PhD, spoke with me on the condition that I don’t use his real name or the name of the practice he left. He was hired by a traditional group practice with a multidisciplinary staff and several offices in his state. Most of the clinicians worked part time and were contractual employees, and Dr. Brown was hired to develop a specialty service. He soon learned that the practice – which participates with a number of insurance plans – was not financially stable, and it was acquired by an investment firm with no medical experience.
“They wanted everyone to work 40-hour weeks and see 14 patients a day, including 3-4 new patients, and suddenly everyone was overextended and exhausted. Overnight, most of the therapists left, and they hired nurse practitioners to replace many of the psychiatrists. People weren’t getting good care.” While this was not a telepsychiatry startup, it was a corporate takeover of a traditional practice that was unable to remain financially solvent while participating with insurance panels.
Like Sue W, Elizabeth K struggled to get treatment for ADHD even before the pandemic.
“I work multiple part-time jobs, don’t own a car, and don’t have insurance. Before telehealth became available, it was difficult and discouraging for me to maintain consistent treatment. It took me months to get initial appointments with a doctor and I live in one of the largest cities in the country.” She was pleased with the care she received by Done.
“I was pleasantly surprised by the authenticity and thoroughness of my first telehealth provider,” Elizabeth noted. “She remembered and considered more about me, my medical history, and details of my personal life than nearly every psychiatric doctor I’ve ever seen. They informed me of the long-term effects of medications and the importance of routine cardiovascular check-ups. Also, they wouldn’t prescribe more than 5 mg of Adderall (even though I had been prescribed 30-90 mg a day for most of my life) until I completed a medical check-up with blood pressure and blood test results.”
Corporate telepsychiatry may fill an important void and provide care to many people who have been unable to access traditional treatment. Something, however, has to account for the fact that care is more affordable through startups than through traditional psychiatric practices. Startups have expensive technological and infrastructure costs and added layers of administration. This translates to either higher volumes with shorter appointments, less compensation for prescribers, or both. How this will affect the future of psychiatric care remains to be seen.
Dr. Miller, is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Sue W’s mother died in 2018, she struggled terribly. She was already seeing a psychotherapist and was taking duloxetine, prescribed by her primary care physician. But her grief was profound, and her depression became paralyzing. She needed to see a psychiatrist, and there were many available in or near her hometown, a Connecticut suburb of New York City, but neither Sue, her therapist, nor her primary care doctor could find a psychiatrist who participated with her insurance. Finally, she was given the name of a psychiatrist in Manhattan who practiced online, and she made an appointment on the Skypiatrist (a telepsychiatry group founded in 2016) website.
“I hesitated about it at first,” Sue said. “The doctor was nice, and I liked the convenience. Appointments were 15 minutes long, although the first session was longer. He focused on the medications, which was okay because I already have a therapist. And it was really easy. I made appointments on their website and I saw the doctor through the same site, and I really liked that I could send him messages.” The psychiatrist was responsive when Sue had trouble coming off duloxetine, and he gave her instructions for a slower taper. The treatment was affordable and accessible, and she got better.
When you also consider that many private-practice psychiatrists do not participate with insurance panels, online companies that do accept insurance may add value, convenience, and access.
Cerebral, the largest online psychiatric service in the country, began seeing patients in January 2020, offering medications and psychotherapy. They participate with a number of commercial insurers, and this varies by state, but not with Medicaid or Medicare. Patients pay a monthly fee, and an initial 30-minute medication evaluation session is conducted, often with a nurse practitioner. They advertise wait times of less than 7 days.
Another company, Done, offers treatment specifically for ADHD. They don’t accept insurance for appointments; patients must submit their own claims for reimbursement. Their pricing structure involves a fee of $199 for the first month, then $79 a month thereafter, which does not include medications. Hims – another online company – targets men with a variety of health issues, including mental health problems.
Some of these internet companies have been in the news recently for concerns related to quality of care and prescribing practices. A The Wall Street Journal article of March 26, 2022, quoted clinicians who had previously worked for Cerebral and Done who left because they felt pressured to see patients quickly and to prescribe stimulants. Not all of the prescribers were unhappy, however. Yina Cruz-Harris, a nurse practitioner at Done who has a doctorate in nursing practice, said that she manages 2,300 patients with ADHD for Done. Virtually all are on stimulants. She renews each patient’s monthly prescription from her New Jersey home, based mostly on online forms filled out by the patients. She’s fast, doing two renewals per minute, and Done pays her almost $10 per patient, working out to around $20,000 in monthly earnings.
In May, the Department of Justice began looking into Cerebral’s practices around controlled substances and more recently, Cerebral has been in the news for complaints from patients that they have been unable to reach their prescribers when problems arise. Some pharmacy chains have refused to fill prescriptions for controlled medications from online telehealth providers, and some online providers, including Cerebral, are no longer prescribing controlled substances. A front-page The Wall Street Journal article on Aug. 19, 2022, told the story of a man with a history of addiction who was prescribed stimulants after a brief appointment with a prescriber at Done. Family and friends in his sober house believe that the stimulants triggered a relapse, and he died of an opioid overdose.
During the early days of the pandemic, nonemergency psychiatric care was shut down and we all became virtual psychiatrists. Many of us saw new patients and prescribed controlled medications to people we had never met in real life.
“John Brown,” MD, PhD, spoke with me on the condition that I don’t use his real name or the name of the practice he left. He was hired by a traditional group practice with a multidisciplinary staff and several offices in his state. Most of the clinicians worked part time and were contractual employees, and Dr. Brown was hired to develop a specialty service. He soon learned that the practice – which participates with a number of insurance plans – was not financially stable, and it was acquired by an investment firm with no medical experience.
“They wanted everyone to work 40-hour weeks and see 14 patients a day, including 3-4 new patients, and suddenly everyone was overextended and exhausted. Overnight, most of the therapists left, and they hired nurse practitioners to replace many of the psychiatrists. People weren’t getting good care.” While this was not a telepsychiatry startup, it was a corporate takeover of a traditional practice that was unable to remain financially solvent while participating with insurance panels.
Like Sue W, Elizabeth K struggled to get treatment for ADHD even before the pandemic.
“I work multiple part-time jobs, don’t own a car, and don’t have insurance. Before telehealth became available, it was difficult and discouraging for me to maintain consistent treatment. It took me months to get initial appointments with a doctor and I live in one of the largest cities in the country.” She was pleased with the care she received by Done.
“I was pleasantly surprised by the authenticity and thoroughness of my first telehealth provider,” Elizabeth noted. “She remembered and considered more about me, my medical history, and details of my personal life than nearly every psychiatric doctor I’ve ever seen. They informed me of the long-term effects of medications and the importance of routine cardiovascular check-ups. Also, they wouldn’t prescribe more than 5 mg of Adderall (even though I had been prescribed 30-90 mg a day for most of my life) until I completed a medical check-up with blood pressure and blood test results.”
Corporate telepsychiatry may fill an important void and provide care to many people who have been unable to access traditional treatment. Something, however, has to account for the fact that care is more affordable through startups than through traditional psychiatric practices. Startups have expensive technological and infrastructure costs and added layers of administration. This translates to either higher volumes with shorter appointments, less compensation for prescribers, or both. How this will affect the future of psychiatric care remains to be seen.
Dr. Miller, is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Sue W’s mother died in 2018, she struggled terribly. She was already seeing a psychotherapist and was taking duloxetine, prescribed by her primary care physician. But her grief was profound, and her depression became paralyzing. She needed to see a psychiatrist, and there were many available in or near her hometown, a Connecticut suburb of New York City, but neither Sue, her therapist, nor her primary care doctor could find a psychiatrist who participated with her insurance. Finally, she was given the name of a psychiatrist in Manhattan who practiced online, and she made an appointment on the Skypiatrist (a telepsychiatry group founded in 2016) website.
“I hesitated about it at first,” Sue said. “The doctor was nice, and I liked the convenience. Appointments were 15 minutes long, although the first session was longer. He focused on the medications, which was okay because I already have a therapist. And it was really easy. I made appointments on their website and I saw the doctor through the same site, and I really liked that I could send him messages.” The psychiatrist was responsive when Sue had trouble coming off duloxetine, and he gave her instructions for a slower taper. The treatment was affordable and accessible, and she got better.
When you also consider that many private-practice psychiatrists do not participate with insurance panels, online companies that do accept insurance may add value, convenience, and access.
Cerebral, the largest online psychiatric service in the country, began seeing patients in January 2020, offering medications and psychotherapy. They participate with a number of commercial insurers, and this varies by state, but not with Medicaid or Medicare. Patients pay a monthly fee, and an initial 30-minute medication evaluation session is conducted, often with a nurse practitioner. They advertise wait times of less than 7 days.
Another company, Done, offers treatment specifically for ADHD. They don’t accept insurance for appointments; patients must submit their own claims for reimbursement. Their pricing structure involves a fee of $199 for the first month, then $79 a month thereafter, which does not include medications. Hims – another online company – targets men with a variety of health issues, including mental health problems.
Some of these internet companies have been in the news recently for concerns related to quality of care and prescribing practices. A The Wall Street Journal article of March 26, 2022, quoted clinicians who had previously worked for Cerebral and Done who left because they felt pressured to see patients quickly and to prescribe stimulants. Not all of the prescribers were unhappy, however. Yina Cruz-Harris, a nurse practitioner at Done who has a doctorate in nursing practice, said that she manages 2,300 patients with ADHD for Done. Virtually all are on stimulants. She renews each patient’s monthly prescription from her New Jersey home, based mostly on online forms filled out by the patients. She’s fast, doing two renewals per minute, and Done pays her almost $10 per patient, working out to around $20,000 in monthly earnings.
In May, the Department of Justice began looking into Cerebral’s practices around controlled substances and more recently, Cerebral has been in the news for complaints from patients that they have been unable to reach their prescribers when problems arise. Some pharmacy chains have refused to fill prescriptions for controlled medications from online telehealth providers, and some online providers, including Cerebral, are no longer prescribing controlled substances. A front-page The Wall Street Journal article on Aug. 19, 2022, told the story of a man with a history of addiction who was prescribed stimulants after a brief appointment with a prescriber at Done. Family and friends in his sober house believe that the stimulants triggered a relapse, and he died of an opioid overdose.
During the early days of the pandemic, nonemergency psychiatric care was shut down and we all became virtual psychiatrists. Many of us saw new patients and prescribed controlled medications to people we had never met in real life.
“John Brown,” MD, PhD, spoke with me on the condition that I don’t use his real name or the name of the practice he left. He was hired by a traditional group practice with a multidisciplinary staff and several offices in his state. Most of the clinicians worked part time and were contractual employees, and Dr. Brown was hired to develop a specialty service. He soon learned that the practice – which participates with a number of insurance plans – was not financially stable, and it was acquired by an investment firm with no medical experience.
“They wanted everyone to work 40-hour weeks and see 14 patients a day, including 3-4 new patients, and suddenly everyone was overextended and exhausted. Overnight, most of the therapists left, and they hired nurse practitioners to replace many of the psychiatrists. People weren’t getting good care.” While this was not a telepsychiatry startup, it was a corporate takeover of a traditional practice that was unable to remain financially solvent while participating with insurance panels.
Like Sue W, Elizabeth K struggled to get treatment for ADHD even before the pandemic.
“I work multiple part-time jobs, don’t own a car, and don’t have insurance. Before telehealth became available, it was difficult and discouraging for me to maintain consistent treatment. It took me months to get initial appointments with a doctor and I live in one of the largest cities in the country.” She was pleased with the care she received by Done.
“I was pleasantly surprised by the authenticity and thoroughness of my first telehealth provider,” Elizabeth noted. “She remembered and considered more about me, my medical history, and details of my personal life than nearly every psychiatric doctor I’ve ever seen. They informed me of the long-term effects of medications and the importance of routine cardiovascular check-ups. Also, they wouldn’t prescribe more than 5 mg of Adderall (even though I had been prescribed 30-90 mg a day for most of my life) until I completed a medical check-up with blood pressure and blood test results.”
Corporate telepsychiatry may fill an important void and provide care to many people who have been unable to access traditional treatment. Something, however, has to account for the fact that care is more affordable through startups than through traditional psychiatric practices. Startups have expensive technological and infrastructure costs and added layers of administration. This translates to either higher volumes with shorter appointments, less compensation for prescribers, or both. How this will affect the future of psychiatric care remains to be seen.
Dr. Miller, is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mothers’ diabetes linked to ADHD in their children
Children born to women who develop diabetes either before or during their pregnancy could be at risk for developing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, data from a large multinational cohort study appear to show.
Considering more than 4.5 million mother-child pairs, it was found that children whose mothers had diabetes around the time of their pregnancy were 16% more likely to have ADHD diagnosed than were those whose mothers did not.
An increased risk was seen regardless of the type of diabetes, and regardless of whether or not the diabetes was present before or appeared during the pregnancy.
“We found a small increased risk of ADHD in children born to mothers with diabetes, including pregestational diabetes and gestational diabetes,” Carolyn Cesta, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Dr. Cesta, a postdoctoral researcher in the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm noted that the effect sizes seen were lower than had been reported previously.
“This may be because we adjusted for a large number of covariates, including maternal ADHD and psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Cesta said.
ADHD and diabetes
“Previous studies have reported an increase in the risk of ADHD in children born to mothers with diabetes,” explained Dr. Cesta.
However, “these studies have been limited by the use of self-reported data, small sample sizes, lack of adjustment for important confounders, and they’re often limited to [White] populations,” she added. “There’s a lot of heterogeneity between these studies,” she said.
To try to iron out the differences seen in the prior studies, Dr. Cesta and associates looked at data from several databases based in Hong Kong (Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System), four Nordic countries (Population Health Registers for Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), and Taiwan (National Health Insurance Database).
To create the matched mother-child pairs, the databases were searched to find women who had children born between 2001 and 2018, and who had follow-up data available up to 2020 on not only their diabetes status and child’s ADHD status, but also other parameters, such as other maternal diagnoses, maternal medications, and a host of sociodemographic factors.
More than 24 potentially confounding or covariates were considered in the analysis, which used Cox proportional hazard regression modeling and propensity score analysis to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
“We looked at whether [mothers] had a diagnosis of ADHD themselves, or other psychiatric disorders, because there is high heritability for these disorders,” Dr. Cesta said, indicating that all bases had endeavored to be covered.
Main findings
Results showed some differences in the prevalence of diabetes and ADHD between the three cohorts used in the analysis. The prevalence of any maternal diabetes ranged from 8.8% in the Hong Kong cohort to 3.3% in the Taiwan cohort, with a prevalence of 6.8% for the Nordic cohort.
Rates of pregestational diabetes were lowest in the Taiwan and Hong Kong cohorts, at 0.2% and 0.5%, respectively, and 2.2% in the Nordic cohort. Gestational diabetes rates were a respective 3.1%, 7.8%, and 4.6%.
The highest rate of ADHD in children was seen in the Taiwan cohort, at 9.6%, followed by 4.2% for the Hong Kong cohort, and 2.6% for the Nordic cohort.
The hazard ratio for having childhood ADHD was 1.16 when comparing any maternal diabetes to no maternal diabetes, 1.40 comparing mothers with and without pregestational diabetes, and a respective 1.36 and 1.37 comparing those with and without type 1 diabetes, and those with and without type 2 diabetes.
The HR for childhood ADHD comparing mothers with and without gestational diabetes was 1.13.
“Within the analysis for gestational diabetes, we had enough numbers to look at siblings that are discordant for maternal gestational diabetes,” Dr. Cesta said. Essentially “we’re comparing two siblings from the same mother, one that was exposed to gestational diabetes, one that wasn’t,” she explained.
Interestingly there was no association between ADHD and maternal gestational diabetes in the sibling analysis (HR, 1.0).
“When it comes to gestational diabetes, the evidence from our sibling analysis indicate that the association may actually be confounded by shared genetics and environmental factors,” said Dr. Cesta.
“So, future studies should explore the role of specific genetic factors in glycemic control during pregnancy and the relationship between maternal diabetes and ADHD.”
Answering long-standing questions
These data will help a lot in answering questions that clinicians have been asking themselves a long time, commented Jardena Puder, MD, who chaired the session.
“It still remains a bit puzzling that genetic and environmental factors could be responsible, if you see the same effect in type 1 [diabetes], and in type 2 [diabetes], and gestational diabetes,” said Dr. Puder, who is an endocrinologist and diabetologist at the woman-mother-child department at the Vaud University Hospital Center, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Type 1 and type 2 are “very distinct” in terms of the genetic and environmental factors involved, “so, the fact that you see [the effect] in both remains a bit puzzling,” said Dr. Puder.
“I wish we had the numbers to be able to do the sibling analysis for type 1 and type 2, just to see if we could tease anything out,” said Dr. Cesta.
“I do think this is part of the bigger question of what the relationship is between, like, metabolic disorders and psychiatric disorders, because even outside of pregnancy, we see that there’s often a comorbidity with them. So, it’s a good point.”
The next step is to look at the role of treatment and what effects glycemic control might have on the small, but still apparent, association between maternal diabetes and ADHD.
The study had multiple funders including the Hong Kong Research Grant Council, NordForsk, the Research Council of Norway, the Norwegian ADHD Research Network, the Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Commission, and European Horizon 2020.
Dr. Cesta had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Puder chaired the session in which the findings were presented and made no specific disclosures.
Children born to women who develop diabetes either before or during their pregnancy could be at risk for developing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, data from a large multinational cohort study appear to show.
Considering more than 4.5 million mother-child pairs, it was found that children whose mothers had diabetes around the time of their pregnancy were 16% more likely to have ADHD diagnosed than were those whose mothers did not.
An increased risk was seen regardless of the type of diabetes, and regardless of whether or not the diabetes was present before or appeared during the pregnancy.
“We found a small increased risk of ADHD in children born to mothers with diabetes, including pregestational diabetes and gestational diabetes,” Carolyn Cesta, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Dr. Cesta, a postdoctoral researcher in the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm noted that the effect sizes seen were lower than had been reported previously.
“This may be because we adjusted for a large number of covariates, including maternal ADHD and psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Cesta said.
ADHD and diabetes
“Previous studies have reported an increase in the risk of ADHD in children born to mothers with diabetes,” explained Dr. Cesta.
However, “these studies have been limited by the use of self-reported data, small sample sizes, lack of adjustment for important confounders, and they’re often limited to [White] populations,” she added. “There’s a lot of heterogeneity between these studies,” she said.
To try to iron out the differences seen in the prior studies, Dr. Cesta and associates looked at data from several databases based in Hong Kong (Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System), four Nordic countries (Population Health Registers for Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), and Taiwan (National Health Insurance Database).
To create the matched mother-child pairs, the databases were searched to find women who had children born between 2001 and 2018, and who had follow-up data available up to 2020 on not only their diabetes status and child’s ADHD status, but also other parameters, such as other maternal diagnoses, maternal medications, and a host of sociodemographic factors.
More than 24 potentially confounding or covariates were considered in the analysis, which used Cox proportional hazard regression modeling and propensity score analysis to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
“We looked at whether [mothers] had a diagnosis of ADHD themselves, or other psychiatric disorders, because there is high heritability for these disorders,” Dr. Cesta said, indicating that all bases had endeavored to be covered.
Main findings
Results showed some differences in the prevalence of diabetes and ADHD between the three cohorts used in the analysis. The prevalence of any maternal diabetes ranged from 8.8% in the Hong Kong cohort to 3.3% in the Taiwan cohort, with a prevalence of 6.8% for the Nordic cohort.
Rates of pregestational diabetes were lowest in the Taiwan and Hong Kong cohorts, at 0.2% and 0.5%, respectively, and 2.2% in the Nordic cohort. Gestational diabetes rates were a respective 3.1%, 7.8%, and 4.6%.
The highest rate of ADHD in children was seen in the Taiwan cohort, at 9.6%, followed by 4.2% for the Hong Kong cohort, and 2.6% for the Nordic cohort.
The hazard ratio for having childhood ADHD was 1.16 when comparing any maternal diabetes to no maternal diabetes, 1.40 comparing mothers with and without pregestational diabetes, and a respective 1.36 and 1.37 comparing those with and without type 1 diabetes, and those with and without type 2 diabetes.
The HR for childhood ADHD comparing mothers with and without gestational diabetes was 1.13.
“Within the analysis for gestational diabetes, we had enough numbers to look at siblings that are discordant for maternal gestational diabetes,” Dr. Cesta said. Essentially “we’re comparing two siblings from the same mother, one that was exposed to gestational diabetes, one that wasn’t,” she explained.
Interestingly there was no association between ADHD and maternal gestational diabetes in the sibling analysis (HR, 1.0).
“When it comes to gestational diabetes, the evidence from our sibling analysis indicate that the association may actually be confounded by shared genetics and environmental factors,” said Dr. Cesta.
“So, future studies should explore the role of specific genetic factors in glycemic control during pregnancy and the relationship between maternal diabetes and ADHD.”
Answering long-standing questions
These data will help a lot in answering questions that clinicians have been asking themselves a long time, commented Jardena Puder, MD, who chaired the session.
“It still remains a bit puzzling that genetic and environmental factors could be responsible, if you see the same effect in type 1 [diabetes], and in type 2 [diabetes], and gestational diabetes,” said Dr. Puder, who is an endocrinologist and diabetologist at the woman-mother-child department at the Vaud University Hospital Center, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Type 1 and type 2 are “very distinct” in terms of the genetic and environmental factors involved, “so, the fact that you see [the effect] in both remains a bit puzzling,” said Dr. Puder.
“I wish we had the numbers to be able to do the sibling analysis for type 1 and type 2, just to see if we could tease anything out,” said Dr. Cesta.
“I do think this is part of the bigger question of what the relationship is between, like, metabolic disorders and psychiatric disorders, because even outside of pregnancy, we see that there’s often a comorbidity with them. So, it’s a good point.”
The next step is to look at the role of treatment and what effects glycemic control might have on the small, but still apparent, association between maternal diabetes and ADHD.
The study had multiple funders including the Hong Kong Research Grant Council, NordForsk, the Research Council of Norway, the Norwegian ADHD Research Network, the Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Commission, and European Horizon 2020.
Dr. Cesta had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Puder chaired the session in which the findings were presented and made no specific disclosures.
Children born to women who develop diabetes either before or during their pregnancy could be at risk for developing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, data from a large multinational cohort study appear to show.
Considering more than 4.5 million mother-child pairs, it was found that children whose mothers had diabetes around the time of their pregnancy were 16% more likely to have ADHD diagnosed than were those whose mothers did not.
An increased risk was seen regardless of the type of diabetes, and regardless of whether or not the diabetes was present before or appeared during the pregnancy.
“We found a small increased risk of ADHD in children born to mothers with diabetes, including pregestational diabetes and gestational diabetes,” Carolyn Cesta, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Dr. Cesta, a postdoctoral researcher in the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm noted that the effect sizes seen were lower than had been reported previously.
“This may be because we adjusted for a large number of covariates, including maternal ADHD and psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Cesta said.
ADHD and diabetes
“Previous studies have reported an increase in the risk of ADHD in children born to mothers with diabetes,” explained Dr. Cesta.
However, “these studies have been limited by the use of self-reported data, small sample sizes, lack of adjustment for important confounders, and they’re often limited to [White] populations,” she added. “There’s a lot of heterogeneity between these studies,” she said.
To try to iron out the differences seen in the prior studies, Dr. Cesta and associates looked at data from several databases based in Hong Kong (Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System), four Nordic countries (Population Health Registers for Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), and Taiwan (National Health Insurance Database).
To create the matched mother-child pairs, the databases were searched to find women who had children born between 2001 and 2018, and who had follow-up data available up to 2020 on not only their diabetes status and child’s ADHD status, but also other parameters, such as other maternal diagnoses, maternal medications, and a host of sociodemographic factors.
More than 24 potentially confounding or covariates were considered in the analysis, which used Cox proportional hazard regression modeling and propensity score analysis to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
“We looked at whether [mothers] had a diagnosis of ADHD themselves, or other psychiatric disorders, because there is high heritability for these disorders,” Dr. Cesta said, indicating that all bases had endeavored to be covered.
Main findings
Results showed some differences in the prevalence of diabetes and ADHD between the three cohorts used in the analysis. The prevalence of any maternal diabetes ranged from 8.8% in the Hong Kong cohort to 3.3% in the Taiwan cohort, with a prevalence of 6.8% for the Nordic cohort.
Rates of pregestational diabetes were lowest in the Taiwan and Hong Kong cohorts, at 0.2% and 0.5%, respectively, and 2.2% in the Nordic cohort. Gestational diabetes rates were a respective 3.1%, 7.8%, and 4.6%.
The highest rate of ADHD in children was seen in the Taiwan cohort, at 9.6%, followed by 4.2% for the Hong Kong cohort, and 2.6% for the Nordic cohort.
The hazard ratio for having childhood ADHD was 1.16 when comparing any maternal diabetes to no maternal diabetes, 1.40 comparing mothers with and without pregestational diabetes, and a respective 1.36 and 1.37 comparing those with and without type 1 diabetes, and those with and without type 2 diabetes.
The HR for childhood ADHD comparing mothers with and without gestational diabetes was 1.13.
“Within the analysis for gestational diabetes, we had enough numbers to look at siblings that are discordant for maternal gestational diabetes,” Dr. Cesta said. Essentially “we’re comparing two siblings from the same mother, one that was exposed to gestational diabetes, one that wasn’t,” she explained.
Interestingly there was no association between ADHD and maternal gestational diabetes in the sibling analysis (HR, 1.0).
“When it comes to gestational diabetes, the evidence from our sibling analysis indicate that the association may actually be confounded by shared genetics and environmental factors,” said Dr. Cesta.
“So, future studies should explore the role of specific genetic factors in glycemic control during pregnancy and the relationship between maternal diabetes and ADHD.”
Answering long-standing questions
These data will help a lot in answering questions that clinicians have been asking themselves a long time, commented Jardena Puder, MD, who chaired the session.
“It still remains a bit puzzling that genetic and environmental factors could be responsible, if you see the same effect in type 1 [diabetes], and in type 2 [diabetes], and gestational diabetes,” said Dr. Puder, who is an endocrinologist and diabetologist at the woman-mother-child department at the Vaud University Hospital Center, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Type 1 and type 2 are “very distinct” in terms of the genetic and environmental factors involved, “so, the fact that you see [the effect] in both remains a bit puzzling,” said Dr. Puder.
“I wish we had the numbers to be able to do the sibling analysis for type 1 and type 2, just to see if we could tease anything out,” said Dr. Cesta.
“I do think this is part of the bigger question of what the relationship is between, like, metabolic disorders and psychiatric disorders, because even outside of pregnancy, we see that there’s often a comorbidity with them. So, it’s a good point.”
The next step is to look at the role of treatment and what effects glycemic control might have on the small, but still apparent, association between maternal diabetes and ADHD.
The study had multiple funders including the Hong Kong Research Grant Council, NordForsk, the Research Council of Norway, the Norwegian ADHD Research Network, the Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Commission, and European Horizon 2020.
Dr. Cesta had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Puder chaired the session in which the findings were presented and made no specific disclosures.
FROM EASD 2022
Adderall shortage reported by pharmacies, patients
Half a dozen people told Bloomberg that pharmacies told them in August and September that the drug was out of stock. The patients were told the drug might not be available for weeks, though it’s supposed to be taken daily. BuzzFeed News said 20 people across the nation said that their pharmacies didn’t have Adderall in stock.
“It’s so frustrating that getting my meds requires me to be organized, focused, and motivated – all the things I’m on these meds to help with,” Irene Kelly, who has been using Adderall for 14 years, told BuzzFeed News.
Two pharmacy chains told Bloomberg that Adderall has not always been available to sell. Walgreens spokesperson Rebekah Pajak said there were “supply chain challenges” affecting instant-release and extended-release versions of the drug. CVS pharmacies can fill Adderall prescriptions “in most cases,” CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette said.
Several drugmakers have had brand-name and generic versions of Adderall on back order for months, Bloomberg reported. The problem started with a labor shortage at Teva Pharmaceutical, the top seller of Adderall in the United States, that created a limited supply of brand-name and generic instant-release Adderall, according to the outlet.
That said, the Food and Drug Administration is not reporting an Adderall shortage on its drug shortages database. The federal agency says it lists a drug as being in short supply when “overall market demand is not being met by the manufacturers of the product,” Bloomberg said.
“Manufacturers continue to release product,” FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said, according to Bloomberg.
Demand for Adderall is growing, possibly because of rising ADHD diagnoses that occurred during telehealth medical appointments amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg reported, noting that some of those telehealth companies have come under scrutiny by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other government agencies.
NBC News, citing IQVIA, an analytics provider for the life sciences industry, reported that 41.4 million Adderall prescriptions were issued last year, up 10.4% from 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Half a dozen people told Bloomberg that pharmacies told them in August and September that the drug was out of stock. The patients were told the drug might not be available for weeks, though it’s supposed to be taken daily. BuzzFeed News said 20 people across the nation said that their pharmacies didn’t have Adderall in stock.
“It’s so frustrating that getting my meds requires me to be organized, focused, and motivated – all the things I’m on these meds to help with,” Irene Kelly, who has been using Adderall for 14 years, told BuzzFeed News.
Two pharmacy chains told Bloomberg that Adderall has not always been available to sell. Walgreens spokesperson Rebekah Pajak said there were “supply chain challenges” affecting instant-release and extended-release versions of the drug. CVS pharmacies can fill Adderall prescriptions “in most cases,” CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette said.
Several drugmakers have had brand-name and generic versions of Adderall on back order for months, Bloomberg reported. The problem started with a labor shortage at Teva Pharmaceutical, the top seller of Adderall in the United States, that created a limited supply of brand-name and generic instant-release Adderall, according to the outlet.
That said, the Food and Drug Administration is not reporting an Adderall shortage on its drug shortages database. The federal agency says it lists a drug as being in short supply when “overall market demand is not being met by the manufacturers of the product,” Bloomberg said.
“Manufacturers continue to release product,” FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said, according to Bloomberg.
Demand for Adderall is growing, possibly because of rising ADHD diagnoses that occurred during telehealth medical appointments amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg reported, noting that some of those telehealth companies have come under scrutiny by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other government agencies.
NBC News, citing IQVIA, an analytics provider for the life sciences industry, reported that 41.4 million Adderall prescriptions were issued last year, up 10.4% from 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Half a dozen people told Bloomberg that pharmacies told them in August and September that the drug was out of stock. The patients were told the drug might not be available for weeks, though it’s supposed to be taken daily. BuzzFeed News said 20 people across the nation said that their pharmacies didn’t have Adderall in stock.
“It’s so frustrating that getting my meds requires me to be organized, focused, and motivated – all the things I’m on these meds to help with,” Irene Kelly, who has been using Adderall for 14 years, told BuzzFeed News.
Two pharmacy chains told Bloomberg that Adderall has not always been available to sell. Walgreens spokesperson Rebekah Pajak said there were “supply chain challenges” affecting instant-release and extended-release versions of the drug. CVS pharmacies can fill Adderall prescriptions “in most cases,” CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette said.
Several drugmakers have had brand-name and generic versions of Adderall on back order for months, Bloomberg reported. The problem started with a labor shortage at Teva Pharmaceutical, the top seller of Adderall in the United States, that created a limited supply of brand-name and generic instant-release Adderall, according to the outlet.
That said, the Food and Drug Administration is not reporting an Adderall shortage on its drug shortages database. The federal agency says it lists a drug as being in short supply when “overall market demand is not being met by the manufacturers of the product,” Bloomberg said.
“Manufacturers continue to release product,” FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said, according to Bloomberg.
Demand for Adderall is growing, possibly because of rising ADHD diagnoses that occurred during telehealth medical appointments amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg reported, noting that some of those telehealth companies have come under scrutiny by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other government agencies.
NBC News, citing IQVIA, an analytics provider for the life sciences industry, reported that 41.4 million Adderall prescriptions were issued last year, up 10.4% from 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
TikTok’s impact on adolescent mental health
For younger generations, TikTok is a go-to site for those who like short and catchy video clips. As a social media platform that allows concise video sharing, TikTok has over 1 billion monthly global users. Because of its platform size, a plethora of resources, and influence on media discourse, TikTok is the place for content creators to share visual media. Its cursory, condensed content delivery with videos capped at 1-minute focuses on high-yield information and rapid identification of fundamental points that are both engaging and entertaining.
Currently, on TikTok, 40 billion views are associated with the hashtag #mentalhealth. Content creators and regular users are employing this platform to share their own experiences, opinions, and strategies to overcome their struggles. While it is understandable for creators to share their personal stories that may be abusive, traumatic, or violent, they may not be prepared for their video to “go viral.”
Like any other social media platform, hateful speech such as racism, sexism, or xenophobia can accumulate on TikTok, which may cause more self-harm than self-help. Oversharing about personal strategies may lead to misconceived advice for TikTok viewers, while watching these TikTok videos can have negative mental health effects, even though there are no malicious intentions behind the creators who post these videos.
Hence, public health should pay more attention to the potential health-related implications this platform can create, as the quality of the information and the qualifications of the creators are mostly unrevealed. The concerns include undisclosed conflicts of interest, unchecked spread of misinformation, difficulty identifying source credibility, and excessive false information that viewers must filter through.1,2
Individual TikTok users may follow accounts and interpret these content creators as therapists and the content they see as therapy. They may also believe that a close relationship with the content creator exists when it does not. Specifically, these relationships may be defined as parasocial relationships, which are one-sided relationships where one person (the TikTok viewer) extends emotional energy, interest, and time, and the other party (the content creator) is completely unaware of the other’s existence.3 Additionally, Americans who are uninsured/underinsured may turn to this diluted version of therapy to compensate for the one-on-one or group therapy they need.
While TikTok may seem like a dangerous platform to browse through or post on, its growing influence cannot be underestimated. With 41% of TikTok users between the ages of 16 and 24, this is an ideal platform to disseminate public health information pertaining to this age group (for example, safe sex practices, substance abuse, and mental health issues).4 Because younger generations have incorporated social media into their daily lives, the medical community can harness TikTok’s potential to disseminate accurate information to potential patients for targeted medical education.
For example, Jake Goodman, MD, MBA, and Melissa Shepard, MD, each have more than a million TikTok followers and are notable psychiatrists who post a variety of content ranging from recognizing signs of depression to reducing stigma around mental health. Similarly, Justin Puder, PhD, is a licensed psychologist who advocates for ways to overcome mental health issues. By creating diverse content with appealing strategies, spreading accurate medical knowledge, and answering common medical questions for the public, these ‘mental health influencers’ educate potential patients to create patient-centered interactions.
While there are many pros and cons to social media platforms, it is undeniable that these platforms – such as TikTok – are here to stay. It is crucial for members of the medical community to recognize the outlets that younger generations use to express themselves and to exploit these media channels therapeutically.
Ms. Wong is a fourth-year medical student at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y. Dr. Chua is a psychiatrist with the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia.
References
1. Gottlieb M and Dyer S. Information and Disinformation: Social Media in the COVID-19 Crisis. Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Jul;27(7):640-1. doi: 10.1111/acem.14036.
2. De Veirman M et al. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2685. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02685.
3. Bennett N-K et al. “Parasocial Relationships: The Nature of Celebrity Fascinations.” National Register of Health Service Psychologists. https://www.findapsychologist.org/parasocial-relationships-the-nature-of-celebrity-fascinations/.
4. Eghtesadi M and Florea A. Can J Public Health. 2020 Jun;111(3):389-91. doi: 10.17269/s41997-020-00343-0.
For younger generations, TikTok is a go-to site for those who like short and catchy video clips. As a social media platform that allows concise video sharing, TikTok has over 1 billion monthly global users. Because of its platform size, a plethora of resources, and influence on media discourse, TikTok is the place for content creators to share visual media. Its cursory, condensed content delivery with videos capped at 1-minute focuses on high-yield information and rapid identification of fundamental points that are both engaging and entertaining.
Currently, on TikTok, 40 billion views are associated with the hashtag #mentalhealth. Content creators and regular users are employing this platform to share their own experiences, opinions, and strategies to overcome their struggles. While it is understandable for creators to share their personal stories that may be abusive, traumatic, or violent, they may not be prepared for their video to “go viral.”
Like any other social media platform, hateful speech such as racism, sexism, or xenophobia can accumulate on TikTok, which may cause more self-harm than self-help. Oversharing about personal strategies may lead to misconceived advice for TikTok viewers, while watching these TikTok videos can have negative mental health effects, even though there are no malicious intentions behind the creators who post these videos.
Hence, public health should pay more attention to the potential health-related implications this platform can create, as the quality of the information and the qualifications of the creators are mostly unrevealed. The concerns include undisclosed conflicts of interest, unchecked spread of misinformation, difficulty identifying source credibility, and excessive false information that viewers must filter through.1,2
Individual TikTok users may follow accounts and interpret these content creators as therapists and the content they see as therapy. They may also believe that a close relationship with the content creator exists when it does not. Specifically, these relationships may be defined as parasocial relationships, which are one-sided relationships where one person (the TikTok viewer) extends emotional energy, interest, and time, and the other party (the content creator) is completely unaware of the other’s existence.3 Additionally, Americans who are uninsured/underinsured may turn to this diluted version of therapy to compensate for the one-on-one or group therapy they need.
While TikTok may seem like a dangerous platform to browse through or post on, its growing influence cannot be underestimated. With 41% of TikTok users between the ages of 16 and 24, this is an ideal platform to disseminate public health information pertaining to this age group (for example, safe sex practices, substance abuse, and mental health issues).4 Because younger generations have incorporated social media into their daily lives, the medical community can harness TikTok’s potential to disseminate accurate information to potential patients for targeted medical education.
For example, Jake Goodman, MD, MBA, and Melissa Shepard, MD, each have more than a million TikTok followers and are notable psychiatrists who post a variety of content ranging from recognizing signs of depression to reducing stigma around mental health. Similarly, Justin Puder, PhD, is a licensed psychologist who advocates for ways to overcome mental health issues. By creating diverse content with appealing strategies, spreading accurate medical knowledge, and answering common medical questions for the public, these ‘mental health influencers’ educate potential patients to create patient-centered interactions.
While there are many pros and cons to social media platforms, it is undeniable that these platforms – such as TikTok – are here to stay. It is crucial for members of the medical community to recognize the outlets that younger generations use to express themselves and to exploit these media channels therapeutically.
Ms. Wong is a fourth-year medical student at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y. Dr. Chua is a psychiatrist with the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia.
References
1. Gottlieb M and Dyer S. Information and Disinformation: Social Media in the COVID-19 Crisis. Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Jul;27(7):640-1. doi: 10.1111/acem.14036.
2. De Veirman M et al. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2685. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02685.
3. Bennett N-K et al. “Parasocial Relationships: The Nature of Celebrity Fascinations.” National Register of Health Service Psychologists. https://www.findapsychologist.org/parasocial-relationships-the-nature-of-celebrity-fascinations/.
4. Eghtesadi M and Florea A. Can J Public Health. 2020 Jun;111(3):389-91. doi: 10.17269/s41997-020-00343-0.
For younger generations, TikTok is a go-to site for those who like short and catchy video clips. As a social media platform that allows concise video sharing, TikTok has over 1 billion monthly global users. Because of its platform size, a plethora of resources, and influence on media discourse, TikTok is the place for content creators to share visual media. Its cursory, condensed content delivery with videos capped at 1-minute focuses on high-yield information and rapid identification of fundamental points that are both engaging and entertaining.
Currently, on TikTok, 40 billion views are associated with the hashtag #mentalhealth. Content creators and regular users are employing this platform to share their own experiences, opinions, and strategies to overcome their struggles. While it is understandable for creators to share their personal stories that may be abusive, traumatic, or violent, they may not be prepared for their video to “go viral.”
Like any other social media platform, hateful speech such as racism, sexism, or xenophobia can accumulate on TikTok, which may cause more self-harm than self-help. Oversharing about personal strategies may lead to misconceived advice for TikTok viewers, while watching these TikTok videos can have negative mental health effects, even though there are no malicious intentions behind the creators who post these videos.
Hence, public health should pay more attention to the potential health-related implications this platform can create, as the quality of the information and the qualifications of the creators are mostly unrevealed. The concerns include undisclosed conflicts of interest, unchecked spread of misinformation, difficulty identifying source credibility, and excessive false information that viewers must filter through.1,2
Individual TikTok users may follow accounts and interpret these content creators as therapists and the content they see as therapy. They may also believe that a close relationship with the content creator exists when it does not. Specifically, these relationships may be defined as parasocial relationships, which are one-sided relationships where one person (the TikTok viewer) extends emotional energy, interest, and time, and the other party (the content creator) is completely unaware of the other’s existence.3 Additionally, Americans who are uninsured/underinsured may turn to this diluted version of therapy to compensate for the one-on-one or group therapy they need.
While TikTok may seem like a dangerous platform to browse through or post on, its growing influence cannot be underestimated. With 41% of TikTok users between the ages of 16 and 24, this is an ideal platform to disseminate public health information pertaining to this age group (for example, safe sex practices, substance abuse, and mental health issues).4 Because younger generations have incorporated social media into their daily lives, the medical community can harness TikTok’s potential to disseminate accurate information to potential patients for targeted medical education.
For example, Jake Goodman, MD, MBA, and Melissa Shepard, MD, each have more than a million TikTok followers and are notable psychiatrists who post a variety of content ranging from recognizing signs of depression to reducing stigma around mental health. Similarly, Justin Puder, PhD, is a licensed psychologist who advocates for ways to overcome mental health issues. By creating diverse content with appealing strategies, spreading accurate medical knowledge, and answering common medical questions for the public, these ‘mental health influencers’ educate potential patients to create patient-centered interactions.
While there are many pros and cons to social media platforms, it is undeniable that these platforms – such as TikTok – are here to stay. It is crucial for members of the medical community to recognize the outlets that younger generations use to express themselves and to exploit these media channels therapeutically.
Ms. Wong is a fourth-year medical student at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y. Dr. Chua is a psychiatrist with the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia.
References
1. Gottlieb M and Dyer S. Information and Disinformation: Social Media in the COVID-19 Crisis. Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Jul;27(7):640-1. doi: 10.1111/acem.14036.
2. De Veirman M et al. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2685. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02685.
3. Bennett N-K et al. “Parasocial Relationships: The Nature of Celebrity Fascinations.” National Register of Health Service Psychologists. https://www.findapsychologist.org/parasocial-relationships-the-nature-of-celebrity-fascinations/.
4. Eghtesadi M and Florea A. Can J Public Health. 2020 Jun;111(3):389-91. doi: 10.17269/s41997-020-00343-0.
Adult ADHD improved by home-based, noninvasive brain stimulation
Results from the sham-controlled trial also showed that the tDCS treatment was both safe and well tolerated.
Overall, the findings suggest that the device could be a nondrug alternative for treating this patient population, Douglas Teixeira Leffa, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues note.
“This is particularly relevant since a vast body of literature describes low long-term adherence rates and persistence to pharmacological treatment in patients with ADHD,” they write.
The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Avoiding office visits
A noninvasive technique that is easy to use and relatively inexpensive, tDCS involves applying a low-intensity current over the scalp to modulate cortical excitability and induce neuroplasticity. Home-use tDCS devices, which avoid the need for daily office visits for stimulation sessions, have been validated in previous clinical samples.
The current study included 64 adults with ADHD who are not taking stimulants. They had moderate or severe symptoms of inattention, with an inattention score of 21 or higher on the clinician-administered Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale version 1.1 (CASRS).
The CASRS includes nine questions related to inattention symptoms (CASRS-I) and nine related to hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms (CASRS-HI). The score can vary from 0 to 36 for each domain, with higher scores indicating increased symptoms.
Researchers randomly assigned participants to receive either active or sham stimulation.
The tDCS device used in the study delivered a current with 35-cm2 electrodes (7 cm by 5 cm). The anodal and cathodal electrodes were positioned corresponding to the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), respectively.
The investigators note that decreased activation in the right DLPFC has been reported before in patients with ADHD during tasks that require attention.
After learning to use the device, participants underwent 30-minute daily sessions of tDCS (2-mA direct constant current) for 4 weeks for a total of 28 sessions.
Devices programmed for sham treatment delivered a 30-second ramp-up (0-2 mA) stimulation followed by a 30-second ramp-down (2-0 mA) at the beginning, middle, and end of the application. This mimicked the tactile sensations reported with tDCS and has been shown to be a reliable sham protocol.
Participants were encouraged to perform the stimulation sessions at the same time of day. To improve adherence, they received daily text message reminders.
Nine patients discontinued treatment, two in the sham group and seven in the active group. However, patients who finished the trial completed a mean 25 of 28 sessions.
Window of opportunity?
The mean inattention score on CASRS-I at week 4, the primary outcome, was 18.88 in the active tDCS group vs. 23.63 in the sham tDCS group. There was a statistically significant treatment by time interaction for CASRS-I (beta interaction, –3.18; 95% confidence interval, –4.60 to –1.75; P < .001), showing decreased inattention symptoms in the active vs. sham groups.
The estimated Cohen’s d was 1.23 (95% CI, .67-1.78), indicating at least a moderate effect. This effect was similar to that reported with trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS), the first approved device-based therapy for ADHD, and to that of atomoxetine, the second-line treatment for ADHD, the researchers note.
About one-third of patients (34.3%) in the active tDCS group achieved a 30% reduction in CASRS-I score, compared with 6.2% in the sham tDCS group.
There was no statistically significant difference in the secondary outcome of hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms evaluated with the CASRS-HI. This may be because hyperactivity-impulsivity in ADHD is associated with a hypoactivation in the right inferior frontal cortex rather than the right DLPFC, the investigators write.
There were also no significant group differences in other secondary outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and executive function.
Adverse events (AE) were mostly mild and included skin redness and scalp burn. There were no severe or serious AEs.
Using a home-based tDCS device allows for considerably more sessions, with 28 being the highest number so far applied to patients with ADHD. This, the researchers note, is important because evidence suggests increased efficacy of tDCS with extended periods of treatment.
The home-based device “opens a new window of opportunity, especially for participants who live in geographically remote areas or have physical or cognitive disabilities that may hinder access to clinical centers,” they write.
Although a study limitation was the relatively high dropout rate in the active group, which might bias interpretation of the findings, only two of seven dropouts in the active group left because of an AE, the investigators note.
Patients received training in using the device, but there was no remote monitoring of sessions. In addition, the study population, which was relatively homogeneous with participants having no moderate to severe symptoms of depression or anxiety, differed from the usual patients with ADHD who are treated in clinical centers, the researchers point out.
As well, the study included only patients not taking pharmacologic treatment for ADHD – so the findings might not be generalizable to other patients, they add.
‘Just a first step’
Commenting on the study, Mark George, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry, radiology, and neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, noted that although this was a single-center study with a relatively small sample size, it is still important.
Showing it is possible to do high-quality tDCS studies at home “is a huge advance,” said Dr. George, who was not involved with the research.
“Home treatment is cheaper and easier for patients and allows many people to get treatment who would not be able to make it to the clinic daily for treatment,” he added.
He noted the study showed “a clear improvement in ADHD,” which is important because better treatments are needed.
However, he cautioned that this is “just a first step” and more studies are needed. For example, he said, it is not clear whether improvements persist and if patients need to self-treat forever, as they would with a medication.
Dr. George also noted that although the study used “a pioneering research device” with several safety features, many home-based tDCS devices on the market do not have those.
“I don’t advise patients to do this now. Further studies are needed for FDA approval and general public use,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, and the Brazilian Innovation Agency. Dr. Leffa reported having received grants from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul during the conduction of the study. Dr. George reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results from the sham-controlled trial also showed that the tDCS treatment was both safe and well tolerated.
Overall, the findings suggest that the device could be a nondrug alternative for treating this patient population, Douglas Teixeira Leffa, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues note.
“This is particularly relevant since a vast body of literature describes low long-term adherence rates and persistence to pharmacological treatment in patients with ADHD,” they write.
The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Avoiding office visits
A noninvasive technique that is easy to use and relatively inexpensive, tDCS involves applying a low-intensity current over the scalp to modulate cortical excitability and induce neuroplasticity. Home-use tDCS devices, which avoid the need for daily office visits for stimulation sessions, have been validated in previous clinical samples.
The current study included 64 adults with ADHD who are not taking stimulants. They had moderate or severe symptoms of inattention, with an inattention score of 21 or higher on the clinician-administered Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale version 1.1 (CASRS).
The CASRS includes nine questions related to inattention symptoms (CASRS-I) and nine related to hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms (CASRS-HI). The score can vary from 0 to 36 for each domain, with higher scores indicating increased symptoms.
Researchers randomly assigned participants to receive either active or sham stimulation.
The tDCS device used in the study delivered a current with 35-cm2 electrodes (7 cm by 5 cm). The anodal and cathodal electrodes were positioned corresponding to the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), respectively.
The investigators note that decreased activation in the right DLPFC has been reported before in patients with ADHD during tasks that require attention.
After learning to use the device, participants underwent 30-minute daily sessions of tDCS (2-mA direct constant current) for 4 weeks for a total of 28 sessions.
Devices programmed for sham treatment delivered a 30-second ramp-up (0-2 mA) stimulation followed by a 30-second ramp-down (2-0 mA) at the beginning, middle, and end of the application. This mimicked the tactile sensations reported with tDCS and has been shown to be a reliable sham protocol.
Participants were encouraged to perform the stimulation sessions at the same time of day. To improve adherence, they received daily text message reminders.
Nine patients discontinued treatment, two in the sham group and seven in the active group. However, patients who finished the trial completed a mean 25 of 28 sessions.
Window of opportunity?
The mean inattention score on CASRS-I at week 4, the primary outcome, was 18.88 in the active tDCS group vs. 23.63 in the sham tDCS group. There was a statistically significant treatment by time interaction for CASRS-I (beta interaction, –3.18; 95% confidence interval, –4.60 to –1.75; P < .001), showing decreased inattention symptoms in the active vs. sham groups.
The estimated Cohen’s d was 1.23 (95% CI, .67-1.78), indicating at least a moderate effect. This effect was similar to that reported with trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS), the first approved device-based therapy for ADHD, and to that of atomoxetine, the second-line treatment for ADHD, the researchers note.
About one-third of patients (34.3%) in the active tDCS group achieved a 30% reduction in CASRS-I score, compared with 6.2% in the sham tDCS group.
There was no statistically significant difference in the secondary outcome of hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms evaluated with the CASRS-HI. This may be because hyperactivity-impulsivity in ADHD is associated with a hypoactivation in the right inferior frontal cortex rather than the right DLPFC, the investigators write.
There were also no significant group differences in other secondary outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and executive function.
Adverse events (AE) were mostly mild and included skin redness and scalp burn. There were no severe or serious AEs.
Using a home-based tDCS device allows for considerably more sessions, with 28 being the highest number so far applied to patients with ADHD. This, the researchers note, is important because evidence suggests increased efficacy of tDCS with extended periods of treatment.
The home-based device “opens a new window of opportunity, especially for participants who live in geographically remote areas or have physical or cognitive disabilities that may hinder access to clinical centers,” they write.
Although a study limitation was the relatively high dropout rate in the active group, which might bias interpretation of the findings, only two of seven dropouts in the active group left because of an AE, the investigators note.
Patients received training in using the device, but there was no remote monitoring of sessions. In addition, the study population, which was relatively homogeneous with participants having no moderate to severe symptoms of depression or anxiety, differed from the usual patients with ADHD who are treated in clinical centers, the researchers point out.
As well, the study included only patients not taking pharmacologic treatment for ADHD – so the findings might not be generalizable to other patients, they add.
‘Just a first step’
Commenting on the study, Mark George, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry, radiology, and neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, noted that although this was a single-center study with a relatively small sample size, it is still important.
Showing it is possible to do high-quality tDCS studies at home “is a huge advance,” said Dr. George, who was not involved with the research.
“Home treatment is cheaper and easier for patients and allows many people to get treatment who would not be able to make it to the clinic daily for treatment,” he added.
He noted the study showed “a clear improvement in ADHD,” which is important because better treatments are needed.
However, he cautioned that this is “just a first step” and more studies are needed. For example, he said, it is not clear whether improvements persist and if patients need to self-treat forever, as they would with a medication.
Dr. George also noted that although the study used “a pioneering research device” with several safety features, many home-based tDCS devices on the market do not have those.
“I don’t advise patients to do this now. Further studies are needed for FDA approval and general public use,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, and the Brazilian Innovation Agency. Dr. Leffa reported having received grants from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul during the conduction of the study. Dr. George reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results from the sham-controlled trial also showed that the tDCS treatment was both safe and well tolerated.
Overall, the findings suggest that the device could be a nondrug alternative for treating this patient population, Douglas Teixeira Leffa, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues note.
“This is particularly relevant since a vast body of literature describes low long-term adherence rates and persistence to pharmacological treatment in patients with ADHD,” they write.
The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Avoiding office visits
A noninvasive technique that is easy to use and relatively inexpensive, tDCS involves applying a low-intensity current over the scalp to modulate cortical excitability and induce neuroplasticity. Home-use tDCS devices, which avoid the need for daily office visits for stimulation sessions, have been validated in previous clinical samples.
The current study included 64 adults with ADHD who are not taking stimulants. They had moderate or severe symptoms of inattention, with an inattention score of 21 or higher on the clinician-administered Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale version 1.1 (CASRS).
The CASRS includes nine questions related to inattention symptoms (CASRS-I) and nine related to hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms (CASRS-HI). The score can vary from 0 to 36 for each domain, with higher scores indicating increased symptoms.
Researchers randomly assigned participants to receive either active or sham stimulation.
The tDCS device used in the study delivered a current with 35-cm2 electrodes (7 cm by 5 cm). The anodal and cathodal electrodes were positioned corresponding to the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), respectively.
The investigators note that decreased activation in the right DLPFC has been reported before in patients with ADHD during tasks that require attention.
After learning to use the device, participants underwent 30-minute daily sessions of tDCS (2-mA direct constant current) for 4 weeks for a total of 28 sessions.
Devices programmed for sham treatment delivered a 30-second ramp-up (0-2 mA) stimulation followed by a 30-second ramp-down (2-0 mA) at the beginning, middle, and end of the application. This mimicked the tactile sensations reported with tDCS and has been shown to be a reliable sham protocol.
Participants were encouraged to perform the stimulation sessions at the same time of day. To improve adherence, they received daily text message reminders.
Nine patients discontinued treatment, two in the sham group and seven in the active group. However, patients who finished the trial completed a mean 25 of 28 sessions.
Window of opportunity?
The mean inattention score on CASRS-I at week 4, the primary outcome, was 18.88 in the active tDCS group vs. 23.63 in the sham tDCS group. There was a statistically significant treatment by time interaction for CASRS-I (beta interaction, –3.18; 95% confidence interval, –4.60 to –1.75; P < .001), showing decreased inattention symptoms in the active vs. sham groups.
The estimated Cohen’s d was 1.23 (95% CI, .67-1.78), indicating at least a moderate effect. This effect was similar to that reported with trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS), the first approved device-based therapy for ADHD, and to that of atomoxetine, the second-line treatment for ADHD, the researchers note.
About one-third of patients (34.3%) in the active tDCS group achieved a 30% reduction in CASRS-I score, compared with 6.2% in the sham tDCS group.
There was no statistically significant difference in the secondary outcome of hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms evaluated with the CASRS-HI. This may be because hyperactivity-impulsivity in ADHD is associated with a hypoactivation in the right inferior frontal cortex rather than the right DLPFC, the investigators write.
There were also no significant group differences in other secondary outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and executive function.
Adverse events (AE) were mostly mild and included skin redness and scalp burn. There were no severe or serious AEs.
Using a home-based tDCS device allows for considerably more sessions, with 28 being the highest number so far applied to patients with ADHD. This, the researchers note, is important because evidence suggests increased efficacy of tDCS with extended periods of treatment.
The home-based device “opens a new window of opportunity, especially for participants who live in geographically remote areas or have physical or cognitive disabilities that may hinder access to clinical centers,” they write.
Although a study limitation was the relatively high dropout rate in the active group, which might bias interpretation of the findings, only two of seven dropouts in the active group left because of an AE, the investigators note.
Patients received training in using the device, but there was no remote monitoring of sessions. In addition, the study population, which was relatively homogeneous with participants having no moderate to severe symptoms of depression or anxiety, differed from the usual patients with ADHD who are treated in clinical centers, the researchers point out.
As well, the study included only patients not taking pharmacologic treatment for ADHD – so the findings might not be generalizable to other patients, they add.
‘Just a first step’
Commenting on the study, Mark George, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry, radiology, and neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, noted that although this was a single-center study with a relatively small sample size, it is still important.
Showing it is possible to do high-quality tDCS studies at home “is a huge advance,” said Dr. George, who was not involved with the research.
“Home treatment is cheaper and easier for patients and allows many people to get treatment who would not be able to make it to the clinic daily for treatment,” he added.
He noted the study showed “a clear improvement in ADHD,” which is important because better treatments are needed.
However, he cautioned that this is “just a first step” and more studies are needed. For example, he said, it is not clear whether improvements persist and if patients need to self-treat forever, as they would with a medication.
Dr. George also noted that although the study used “a pioneering research device” with several safety features, many home-based tDCS devices on the market do not have those.
“I don’t advise patients to do this now. Further studies are needed for FDA approval and general public use,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, and the Brazilian Innovation Agency. Dr. Leffa reported having received grants from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul during the conduction of the study. Dr. George reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY
Skin-picking, hair-pulling disorders: Diagnostic criteria, prevalence, and treatment
INDIANAPOLIS –
And while both body-focused repetitive behavior disorders affect a greater proportion of females than males, “we have no current information that is useful about what hormonal influences may or may not play in terms of picking and pulling behaviors,” Jon E. Grant, MD, JD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “On a cognitive level, affected children and adolescents often have impaired inhibitory control but they are often 1-2 standard deviations above average IQ. They have Type A personalities [and are] very driven young kids. They also do not tolerate any down time or boredom. They need to be doing something all the time.”
According to the DSM-5, the diagnostic criteria for skin picking includes recurrent skin picking that results in skin lesions and is not attributable to another medical condition or substance. It also involves repeated attempts to decrease or stop the behavior and causes clinically significant distress or impairment.
“The other medical condition that we are interested in is the misuse of or dependence upon amphetamines or other prescription-based or illicit stimulants,” Dr. Grant said. “I saw a young man who was using about 600 mg of Ritalin a day, and he was picking all over the place. He did not have a primary skin disorder.”
The lifetime prevalence of skin picking disorder ranges between 1.4% and 5.4% of the general population. However, about 63% of people in a community sample endorsed some form of skin picking, and in a study of 105 college students, almost 40% said they picked their skin and had noticeable tissue damage as a result.
“Skin picking is not the same as self-injury,” Dr. Grant said. “It is also not simply an anxiety disorder. Anxiety will make people who pick worse, so people will say that they pick when they’re under stress. I can give them benzodiazepines and they’re still going to pick.”
Animal and human studies demonstrate that skin picking and hair pulling primarily affect females. “You will encounter young boys that pick and pull, but it largely affects females, and it tends to start around puberty,” he said. “Picking can have an onset after the age of 30, which is quite uncommon.”
From a cognitive standpoint, pathological skin pickers demonstrate impaired inhibitory control, impaired stop signal reaction time, increased rates of negative urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to negative emotions), and increased rates of positive urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to exciting or pleasurable emotions).
Trichotillomania
The lifetime prevalence of trichotillomania ranges between 0.6% and 3.9%. The onset is typically from ages 10-13 years, and the mean duration of illness is 22 years.
The DSM-5 criteria for trichotillomania are similar to that of skin-picking disorder, “although we don’t really worry about the substance use issue with people who pull their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “It doesn’t seem to have a correlation.” In addition, sometimes, children “will worsen pulling or picking when they have co-occurring ADHD and they’ve been started on a stimulant, even at a typical dose. For kids who have those issues, we prefer to try nonstimulant options for their ADHD such as bupropion or atomoxetine.”
Individuals with trichotillomania also tend to have low self-esteem and increased social anxiety, he added, and about one-third report low or very low quality of life. “When you notice alopecia, particularly in young girls who often have longer hair, up to 20% will eat their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “We don’t know why. It’s not related to vitamin deficiencies; it’s not a pica type of iron deficiency. There seems to be a shame piece about eating one’s own hair, but it’s important to assess that. Ask about constipation or overflow incontinence because they can get a bezoar, which can rupture” and can be fatal.
Skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania co-occur in up to 20% of cases. “When they do it tends to be a more difficult problem,” he said. These patients often come for mental health care because of depression, and most, he added, say “I don’t think I would be depressed if I wasn’t covered with excoriations or missing most of my hair.”
Treatment for both conditions
According to Dr. Grant, the treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is a specific psychotherapy known as “habit reversal therapy,” which involves helping the patient gain better self-control. The drawback is that it’s difficult to find someone trained in habit reversal therapy, “who know anything about skin picking and hair pulling,” he said. “That has been a huge challenge in the field.”
In his experience, the medical treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is N-acetylcysteine, an over-the-counter amino acid and antioxidant, which has been shown to be helpful at a dose of 2,400 mg per day. “Patients report to me that some of the excoriations clear up a little quicker as they’re taking it,” Dr. Grant said.
There may also be a role for antipsychotic therapy, he said, “but because of the associated weight gain with most antipsychotics we prefer not to use them.”
The opioid antagonist naltrexone has been shown to be effective in the subset of patients with skin-picking or hair-pulling disorders whose parents have a substance use disorder, Dr. Grant said. “The thought is that there’s something addictive about this behavior in some kids. These kids will look forward to picking and find it rewarding and exciting.”
Dr. Grant reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
INDIANAPOLIS –
And while both body-focused repetitive behavior disorders affect a greater proportion of females than males, “we have no current information that is useful about what hormonal influences may or may not play in terms of picking and pulling behaviors,” Jon E. Grant, MD, JD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “On a cognitive level, affected children and adolescents often have impaired inhibitory control but they are often 1-2 standard deviations above average IQ. They have Type A personalities [and are] very driven young kids. They also do not tolerate any down time or boredom. They need to be doing something all the time.”
According to the DSM-5, the diagnostic criteria for skin picking includes recurrent skin picking that results in skin lesions and is not attributable to another medical condition or substance. It also involves repeated attempts to decrease or stop the behavior and causes clinically significant distress or impairment.
“The other medical condition that we are interested in is the misuse of or dependence upon amphetamines or other prescription-based or illicit stimulants,” Dr. Grant said. “I saw a young man who was using about 600 mg of Ritalin a day, and he was picking all over the place. He did not have a primary skin disorder.”
The lifetime prevalence of skin picking disorder ranges between 1.4% and 5.4% of the general population. However, about 63% of people in a community sample endorsed some form of skin picking, and in a study of 105 college students, almost 40% said they picked their skin and had noticeable tissue damage as a result.
“Skin picking is not the same as self-injury,” Dr. Grant said. “It is also not simply an anxiety disorder. Anxiety will make people who pick worse, so people will say that they pick when they’re under stress. I can give them benzodiazepines and they’re still going to pick.”
Animal and human studies demonstrate that skin picking and hair pulling primarily affect females. “You will encounter young boys that pick and pull, but it largely affects females, and it tends to start around puberty,” he said. “Picking can have an onset after the age of 30, which is quite uncommon.”
From a cognitive standpoint, pathological skin pickers demonstrate impaired inhibitory control, impaired stop signal reaction time, increased rates of negative urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to negative emotions), and increased rates of positive urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to exciting or pleasurable emotions).
Trichotillomania
The lifetime prevalence of trichotillomania ranges between 0.6% and 3.9%. The onset is typically from ages 10-13 years, and the mean duration of illness is 22 years.
The DSM-5 criteria for trichotillomania are similar to that of skin-picking disorder, “although we don’t really worry about the substance use issue with people who pull their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “It doesn’t seem to have a correlation.” In addition, sometimes, children “will worsen pulling or picking when they have co-occurring ADHD and they’ve been started on a stimulant, even at a typical dose. For kids who have those issues, we prefer to try nonstimulant options for their ADHD such as bupropion or atomoxetine.”
Individuals with trichotillomania also tend to have low self-esteem and increased social anxiety, he added, and about one-third report low or very low quality of life. “When you notice alopecia, particularly in young girls who often have longer hair, up to 20% will eat their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “We don’t know why. It’s not related to vitamin deficiencies; it’s not a pica type of iron deficiency. There seems to be a shame piece about eating one’s own hair, but it’s important to assess that. Ask about constipation or overflow incontinence because they can get a bezoar, which can rupture” and can be fatal.
Skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania co-occur in up to 20% of cases. “When they do it tends to be a more difficult problem,” he said. These patients often come for mental health care because of depression, and most, he added, say “I don’t think I would be depressed if I wasn’t covered with excoriations or missing most of my hair.”
Treatment for both conditions
According to Dr. Grant, the treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is a specific psychotherapy known as “habit reversal therapy,” which involves helping the patient gain better self-control. The drawback is that it’s difficult to find someone trained in habit reversal therapy, “who know anything about skin picking and hair pulling,” he said. “That has been a huge challenge in the field.”
In his experience, the medical treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is N-acetylcysteine, an over-the-counter amino acid and antioxidant, which has been shown to be helpful at a dose of 2,400 mg per day. “Patients report to me that some of the excoriations clear up a little quicker as they’re taking it,” Dr. Grant said.
There may also be a role for antipsychotic therapy, he said, “but because of the associated weight gain with most antipsychotics we prefer not to use them.”
The opioid antagonist naltrexone has been shown to be effective in the subset of patients with skin-picking or hair-pulling disorders whose parents have a substance use disorder, Dr. Grant said. “The thought is that there’s something addictive about this behavior in some kids. These kids will look forward to picking and find it rewarding and exciting.”
Dr. Grant reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
INDIANAPOLIS –
And while both body-focused repetitive behavior disorders affect a greater proportion of females than males, “we have no current information that is useful about what hormonal influences may or may not play in terms of picking and pulling behaviors,” Jon E. Grant, MD, JD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “On a cognitive level, affected children and adolescents often have impaired inhibitory control but they are often 1-2 standard deviations above average IQ. They have Type A personalities [and are] very driven young kids. They also do not tolerate any down time or boredom. They need to be doing something all the time.”
According to the DSM-5, the diagnostic criteria for skin picking includes recurrent skin picking that results in skin lesions and is not attributable to another medical condition or substance. It also involves repeated attempts to decrease or stop the behavior and causes clinically significant distress or impairment.
“The other medical condition that we are interested in is the misuse of or dependence upon amphetamines or other prescription-based or illicit stimulants,” Dr. Grant said. “I saw a young man who was using about 600 mg of Ritalin a day, and he was picking all over the place. He did not have a primary skin disorder.”
The lifetime prevalence of skin picking disorder ranges between 1.4% and 5.4% of the general population. However, about 63% of people in a community sample endorsed some form of skin picking, and in a study of 105 college students, almost 40% said they picked their skin and had noticeable tissue damage as a result.
“Skin picking is not the same as self-injury,” Dr. Grant said. “It is also not simply an anxiety disorder. Anxiety will make people who pick worse, so people will say that they pick when they’re under stress. I can give them benzodiazepines and they’re still going to pick.”
Animal and human studies demonstrate that skin picking and hair pulling primarily affect females. “You will encounter young boys that pick and pull, but it largely affects females, and it tends to start around puberty,” he said. “Picking can have an onset after the age of 30, which is quite uncommon.”
From a cognitive standpoint, pathological skin pickers demonstrate impaired inhibitory control, impaired stop signal reaction time, increased rates of negative urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to negative emotions), and increased rates of positive urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to exciting or pleasurable emotions).
Trichotillomania
The lifetime prevalence of trichotillomania ranges between 0.6% and 3.9%. The onset is typically from ages 10-13 years, and the mean duration of illness is 22 years.
The DSM-5 criteria for trichotillomania are similar to that of skin-picking disorder, “although we don’t really worry about the substance use issue with people who pull their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “It doesn’t seem to have a correlation.” In addition, sometimes, children “will worsen pulling or picking when they have co-occurring ADHD and they’ve been started on a stimulant, even at a typical dose. For kids who have those issues, we prefer to try nonstimulant options for their ADHD such as bupropion or atomoxetine.”
Individuals with trichotillomania also tend to have low self-esteem and increased social anxiety, he added, and about one-third report low or very low quality of life. “When you notice alopecia, particularly in young girls who often have longer hair, up to 20% will eat their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “We don’t know why. It’s not related to vitamin deficiencies; it’s not a pica type of iron deficiency. There seems to be a shame piece about eating one’s own hair, but it’s important to assess that. Ask about constipation or overflow incontinence because they can get a bezoar, which can rupture” and can be fatal.
Skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania co-occur in up to 20% of cases. “When they do it tends to be a more difficult problem,” he said. These patients often come for mental health care because of depression, and most, he added, say “I don’t think I would be depressed if I wasn’t covered with excoriations or missing most of my hair.”
Treatment for both conditions
According to Dr. Grant, the treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is a specific psychotherapy known as “habit reversal therapy,” which involves helping the patient gain better self-control. The drawback is that it’s difficult to find someone trained in habit reversal therapy, “who know anything about skin picking and hair pulling,” he said. “That has been a huge challenge in the field.”
In his experience, the medical treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is N-acetylcysteine, an over-the-counter amino acid and antioxidant, which has been shown to be helpful at a dose of 2,400 mg per day. “Patients report to me that some of the excoriations clear up a little quicker as they’re taking it,” Dr. Grant said.
There may also be a role for antipsychotic therapy, he said, “but because of the associated weight gain with most antipsychotics we prefer not to use them.”
The opioid antagonist naltrexone has been shown to be effective in the subset of patients with skin-picking or hair-pulling disorders whose parents have a substance use disorder, Dr. Grant said. “The thought is that there’s something addictive about this behavior in some kids. These kids will look forward to picking and find it rewarding and exciting.”
Dr. Grant reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
AT SPD 2022
Early childhood allergies linked with ADHD and ASD
, according to a large retrospective study.
“Our study provides strong evidence for the association between allergic disorders in early childhood and the development of ADHD,” Shay Nemet, MD, of the Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel, and colleagues write in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology. “The risk of those children to develop ASD was less significant.”
The researchers analyzed data from 117,022 consecutive children diagnosed with at least one allergic disorder – asthma, conjunctivitis, rhinitis, and drug, food, or skin allergy – and 116,968 children without allergies in the Clalit Health Services pediatric database. The children had been treated from 2000 to 2018; the mean follow-up period was 11 years.
The children who were diagnosed with one or more allergies (mean age, 4.5 years) were significantly more likely to develop ADHD (odds ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 2.39-2.51), ASD (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.08-1.27), or both ADHD and ASD (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.35-1.79) than were the control children who did not have allergies.
Children diagnosed with rhinitis (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 3.80-4.12) and conjunctivitis (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 3.53-3.74) were the most likely to develop ADHD.
Allergy correlation with ADHD and ASD
Cy B. Nadler, PhD, a clinical psychologist and the director of Autism Services at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Missouri, told this news organization that children and adults with neurodevelopmental differences are also more likely to have other health problems.
“Clinicians practicing in subspecialties such as allergy and immunology may have opportunities to help psychologists identify developmental and behavioral concerns early in childhood,” he added.
“Studies like this can’t be accomplished without large health care databases, but this approach has drawbacks, too,” Dr. Nadler said in an email. “Without more information about these patients’ co-occurring medical and behavioral conditions, we are almost certainly missing important contributors to the observed associations.”
Dr. Nadler, who was not involved in the study, noted that in the multivariable analysis that controlled for age at study entry, gender, and number of annual visits, the link between allergy and ASD diagnosis was not significant.
“It is important to remember not to interpret these study results as causal,” he added.
Desha M. Jordan, MD, FAAP, an assistant professor of pediatrics at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, called the study “an interesting new area that has been speculated about for some time” and “one of the first I have seen with statistically significant correlations found between ADHD, ASD, and allergic conditions.”
More questions for future studies
Health care providers need to understand the potential sequelae of allergic conditions so that they can manage their patients appropriately, she advised.
Although symptoms and diagnoses were confirmed for all patients, the study’s retrospective design and the possibility of recall bias were limitations, said Dr. Jordan in an email. She also was not involved in the study.
“For example, the family of a child diagnosed with ADHD or ASD may have been more mindful of anything out of the norm in that child’s past, while the family of a child without these conditions may not have recalled allergic symptoms as important,” she explained.
Another question that arises is whether some patients were treated and managed well while others were not and whether this disparity in care affected the development or severity of ADHD or ASD, she added.
“Is a patient with a well-controlled allergic condition less likely to develop ADHD or ASD than a patient with an uncontrolled allergic condition? Does a well-controlled patient ever return to the same probability of getting ADHD or ASD as a nonallergic patient?”
“While this study expands our understanding of these conditions and their interrelationships, it also brings up many additional questions and opens a new segment of research,” Dr. Jordan said. “More studies in this area are necessary to confirm the findings of this paper.”
The study was partially funded by the Israel Ambulatory Pediatric Association. The authors, Dr. Nadler, and Dr. Jordan report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a large retrospective study.
“Our study provides strong evidence for the association between allergic disorders in early childhood and the development of ADHD,” Shay Nemet, MD, of the Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel, and colleagues write in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology. “The risk of those children to develop ASD was less significant.”
The researchers analyzed data from 117,022 consecutive children diagnosed with at least one allergic disorder – asthma, conjunctivitis, rhinitis, and drug, food, or skin allergy – and 116,968 children without allergies in the Clalit Health Services pediatric database. The children had been treated from 2000 to 2018; the mean follow-up period was 11 years.
The children who were diagnosed with one or more allergies (mean age, 4.5 years) were significantly more likely to develop ADHD (odds ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 2.39-2.51), ASD (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.08-1.27), or both ADHD and ASD (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.35-1.79) than were the control children who did not have allergies.
Children diagnosed with rhinitis (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 3.80-4.12) and conjunctivitis (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 3.53-3.74) were the most likely to develop ADHD.
Allergy correlation with ADHD and ASD
Cy B. Nadler, PhD, a clinical psychologist and the director of Autism Services at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Missouri, told this news organization that children and adults with neurodevelopmental differences are also more likely to have other health problems.
“Clinicians practicing in subspecialties such as allergy and immunology may have opportunities to help psychologists identify developmental and behavioral concerns early in childhood,” he added.
“Studies like this can’t be accomplished without large health care databases, but this approach has drawbacks, too,” Dr. Nadler said in an email. “Without more information about these patients’ co-occurring medical and behavioral conditions, we are almost certainly missing important contributors to the observed associations.”
Dr. Nadler, who was not involved in the study, noted that in the multivariable analysis that controlled for age at study entry, gender, and number of annual visits, the link between allergy and ASD diagnosis was not significant.
“It is important to remember not to interpret these study results as causal,” he added.
Desha M. Jordan, MD, FAAP, an assistant professor of pediatrics at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, called the study “an interesting new area that has been speculated about for some time” and “one of the first I have seen with statistically significant correlations found between ADHD, ASD, and allergic conditions.”
More questions for future studies
Health care providers need to understand the potential sequelae of allergic conditions so that they can manage their patients appropriately, she advised.
Although symptoms and diagnoses were confirmed for all patients, the study’s retrospective design and the possibility of recall bias were limitations, said Dr. Jordan in an email. She also was not involved in the study.
“For example, the family of a child diagnosed with ADHD or ASD may have been more mindful of anything out of the norm in that child’s past, while the family of a child without these conditions may not have recalled allergic symptoms as important,” she explained.
Another question that arises is whether some patients were treated and managed well while others were not and whether this disparity in care affected the development or severity of ADHD or ASD, she added.
“Is a patient with a well-controlled allergic condition less likely to develop ADHD or ASD than a patient with an uncontrolled allergic condition? Does a well-controlled patient ever return to the same probability of getting ADHD or ASD as a nonallergic patient?”
“While this study expands our understanding of these conditions and their interrelationships, it also brings up many additional questions and opens a new segment of research,” Dr. Jordan said. “More studies in this area are necessary to confirm the findings of this paper.”
The study was partially funded by the Israel Ambulatory Pediatric Association. The authors, Dr. Nadler, and Dr. Jordan report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a large retrospective study.
“Our study provides strong evidence for the association between allergic disorders in early childhood and the development of ADHD,” Shay Nemet, MD, of the Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel, and colleagues write in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology. “The risk of those children to develop ASD was less significant.”
The researchers analyzed data from 117,022 consecutive children diagnosed with at least one allergic disorder – asthma, conjunctivitis, rhinitis, and drug, food, or skin allergy – and 116,968 children without allergies in the Clalit Health Services pediatric database. The children had been treated from 2000 to 2018; the mean follow-up period was 11 years.
The children who were diagnosed with one or more allergies (mean age, 4.5 years) were significantly more likely to develop ADHD (odds ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 2.39-2.51), ASD (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.08-1.27), or both ADHD and ASD (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.35-1.79) than were the control children who did not have allergies.
Children diagnosed with rhinitis (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 3.80-4.12) and conjunctivitis (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 3.53-3.74) were the most likely to develop ADHD.
Allergy correlation with ADHD and ASD
Cy B. Nadler, PhD, a clinical psychologist and the director of Autism Services at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Missouri, told this news organization that children and adults with neurodevelopmental differences are also more likely to have other health problems.
“Clinicians practicing in subspecialties such as allergy and immunology may have opportunities to help psychologists identify developmental and behavioral concerns early in childhood,” he added.
“Studies like this can’t be accomplished without large health care databases, but this approach has drawbacks, too,” Dr. Nadler said in an email. “Without more information about these patients’ co-occurring medical and behavioral conditions, we are almost certainly missing important contributors to the observed associations.”
Dr. Nadler, who was not involved in the study, noted that in the multivariable analysis that controlled for age at study entry, gender, and number of annual visits, the link between allergy and ASD diagnosis was not significant.
“It is important to remember not to interpret these study results as causal,” he added.
Desha M. Jordan, MD, FAAP, an assistant professor of pediatrics at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, called the study “an interesting new area that has been speculated about for some time” and “one of the first I have seen with statistically significant correlations found between ADHD, ASD, and allergic conditions.”
More questions for future studies
Health care providers need to understand the potential sequelae of allergic conditions so that they can manage their patients appropriately, she advised.
Although symptoms and diagnoses were confirmed for all patients, the study’s retrospective design and the possibility of recall bias were limitations, said Dr. Jordan in an email. She also was not involved in the study.
“For example, the family of a child diagnosed with ADHD or ASD may have been more mindful of anything out of the norm in that child’s past, while the family of a child without these conditions may not have recalled allergic symptoms as important,” she explained.
Another question that arises is whether some patients were treated and managed well while others were not and whether this disparity in care affected the development or severity of ADHD or ASD, she added.
“Is a patient with a well-controlled allergic condition less likely to develop ADHD or ASD than a patient with an uncontrolled allergic condition? Does a well-controlled patient ever return to the same probability of getting ADHD or ASD as a nonallergic patient?”
“While this study expands our understanding of these conditions and their interrelationships, it also brings up many additional questions and opens a new segment of research,” Dr. Jordan said. “More studies in this area are necessary to confirm the findings of this paper.”
The study was partially funded by the Israel Ambulatory Pediatric Association. The authors, Dr. Nadler, and Dr. Jordan report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PEDIATRIC ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
Why we should be scrutinizing the rising prevalence of adult ADHD
In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), stimulants reduce impulsivity and improve attention and focus. In individuals who do not have this disorder, stimulants are believed to enhance cognition, attention, and physical performance. In this article, I describe how a patient whose intermittent use of stimulants for motivation and cognitive enhancement shaped my approach to the diagnosis of ADHD.
Instant gratification and quick solutions
I asked him questions to confirm the diagnosis, but he rushed to reassure me that he had already been diagnosed with ADHD and had been doing well on dextroamphetamine and amphetamine for many years. I was inclined to question his diagnosis of ADHD after learning of his “as-needed” use of stimulants as brain enhancers. His medical record reflecting the diagnosis of ADHD dated back to when he was a first-year dental student. The diagnosis was based on the patient’s report of procrastination for as long as he could remember. It also hinged on difficulties learning a second language and math being a challenging subject for him. Despite this, he managed to do well in school and earn an undergraduate degree, well enough to later pursue dentistry at a reputable university.
I thought, “Isn’t it normal to lose motivation and have doubts when preparing for a high-stakes exam like the boards? Aren’t these negative thoughts distracting enough to render sustained focus impossible? Doesn’t everyone struggle with procrastination, especially when they need to study? If learning a new language requires devotion, consistency, and sacrifice, isn’t it inherently challenging? Doesn’t good performance in math depend on multiple factors (ie, a strong foundation, cumulative learning, frequent practice), and thus leaves many students struggling?”
This interaction and many similar ones made me scrutinize the diagnosis of ADHD in patients I encounter in clinical settings. We live in a society where instant gratification is cherished, and quick fixes are pursued with little contemplation of pitfalls. Students use stimulants to cram for exams, high-functioning professionals use them to meet deadlines, and athletes use them to enhance performance and improve reaction times. Psychiatry seems to be drawn into the demands of society and may be fueling the “quick-fix” mentality by prescribing stimulants to healthy individuals who want to improve their focus, and then diagnosing them with ADHD to align the prescription with an appropriate diagnosis. Research on the adverse effects of stimulant use in adults is not convincing nor conclusive enough to sway prescribers from denying the average adult patient a stimulant to enhance cognitive function before a high-stakes exam or a critical, career-shaping project if they present with some ADHD traits, which the patient might even hyperbolize to secure the desired prescription. All of this may contribute to the perceived rising prevalence of ADHD among adults.
As for my 30-year-old dental student, I reasoned that continuing his medication, for now, would help me establish rapport and trust. This would allow me to counsel him on the long-term adverse effects of stimulants, and develop a plan to optimize his sleep, focus, and time management skills, eventually improving his cognition and attention naturally. Unfortunately, he did not show up to future appointments after I sent him the refill.
In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), stimulants reduce impulsivity and improve attention and focus. In individuals who do not have this disorder, stimulants are believed to enhance cognition, attention, and physical performance. In this article, I describe how a patient whose intermittent use of stimulants for motivation and cognitive enhancement shaped my approach to the diagnosis of ADHD.
Instant gratification and quick solutions
I asked him questions to confirm the diagnosis, but he rushed to reassure me that he had already been diagnosed with ADHD and had been doing well on dextroamphetamine and amphetamine for many years. I was inclined to question his diagnosis of ADHD after learning of his “as-needed” use of stimulants as brain enhancers. His medical record reflecting the diagnosis of ADHD dated back to when he was a first-year dental student. The diagnosis was based on the patient’s report of procrastination for as long as he could remember. It also hinged on difficulties learning a second language and math being a challenging subject for him. Despite this, he managed to do well in school and earn an undergraduate degree, well enough to later pursue dentistry at a reputable university.
I thought, “Isn’t it normal to lose motivation and have doubts when preparing for a high-stakes exam like the boards? Aren’t these negative thoughts distracting enough to render sustained focus impossible? Doesn’t everyone struggle with procrastination, especially when they need to study? If learning a new language requires devotion, consistency, and sacrifice, isn’t it inherently challenging? Doesn’t good performance in math depend on multiple factors (ie, a strong foundation, cumulative learning, frequent practice), and thus leaves many students struggling?”
This interaction and many similar ones made me scrutinize the diagnosis of ADHD in patients I encounter in clinical settings. We live in a society where instant gratification is cherished, and quick fixes are pursued with little contemplation of pitfalls. Students use stimulants to cram for exams, high-functioning professionals use them to meet deadlines, and athletes use them to enhance performance and improve reaction times. Psychiatry seems to be drawn into the demands of society and may be fueling the “quick-fix” mentality by prescribing stimulants to healthy individuals who want to improve their focus, and then diagnosing them with ADHD to align the prescription with an appropriate diagnosis. Research on the adverse effects of stimulant use in adults is not convincing nor conclusive enough to sway prescribers from denying the average adult patient a stimulant to enhance cognitive function before a high-stakes exam or a critical, career-shaping project if they present with some ADHD traits, which the patient might even hyperbolize to secure the desired prescription. All of this may contribute to the perceived rising prevalence of ADHD among adults.
As for my 30-year-old dental student, I reasoned that continuing his medication, for now, would help me establish rapport and trust. This would allow me to counsel him on the long-term adverse effects of stimulants, and develop a plan to optimize his sleep, focus, and time management skills, eventually improving his cognition and attention naturally. Unfortunately, he did not show up to future appointments after I sent him the refill.
In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), stimulants reduce impulsivity and improve attention and focus. In individuals who do not have this disorder, stimulants are believed to enhance cognition, attention, and physical performance. In this article, I describe how a patient whose intermittent use of stimulants for motivation and cognitive enhancement shaped my approach to the diagnosis of ADHD.
Instant gratification and quick solutions
I asked him questions to confirm the diagnosis, but he rushed to reassure me that he had already been diagnosed with ADHD and had been doing well on dextroamphetamine and amphetamine for many years. I was inclined to question his diagnosis of ADHD after learning of his “as-needed” use of stimulants as brain enhancers. His medical record reflecting the diagnosis of ADHD dated back to when he was a first-year dental student. The diagnosis was based on the patient’s report of procrastination for as long as he could remember. It also hinged on difficulties learning a second language and math being a challenging subject for him. Despite this, he managed to do well in school and earn an undergraduate degree, well enough to later pursue dentistry at a reputable university.
I thought, “Isn’t it normal to lose motivation and have doubts when preparing for a high-stakes exam like the boards? Aren’t these negative thoughts distracting enough to render sustained focus impossible? Doesn’t everyone struggle with procrastination, especially when they need to study? If learning a new language requires devotion, consistency, and sacrifice, isn’t it inherently challenging? Doesn’t good performance in math depend on multiple factors (ie, a strong foundation, cumulative learning, frequent practice), and thus leaves many students struggling?”
This interaction and many similar ones made me scrutinize the diagnosis of ADHD in patients I encounter in clinical settings. We live in a society where instant gratification is cherished, and quick fixes are pursued with little contemplation of pitfalls. Students use stimulants to cram for exams, high-functioning professionals use them to meet deadlines, and athletes use them to enhance performance and improve reaction times. Psychiatry seems to be drawn into the demands of society and may be fueling the “quick-fix” mentality by prescribing stimulants to healthy individuals who want to improve their focus, and then diagnosing them with ADHD to align the prescription with an appropriate diagnosis. Research on the adverse effects of stimulant use in adults is not convincing nor conclusive enough to sway prescribers from denying the average adult patient a stimulant to enhance cognitive function before a high-stakes exam or a critical, career-shaping project if they present with some ADHD traits, which the patient might even hyperbolize to secure the desired prescription. All of this may contribute to the perceived rising prevalence of ADHD among adults.
As for my 30-year-old dental student, I reasoned that continuing his medication, for now, would help me establish rapport and trust. This would allow me to counsel him on the long-term adverse effects of stimulants, and develop a plan to optimize his sleep, focus, and time management skills, eventually improving his cognition and attention naturally. Unfortunately, he did not show up to future appointments after I sent him the refill.
Stimulants may not improve academic learning in children with ADHD
Extended-release methylphenidate (Concerta) had no effect on learning academic material taught in a small group of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a controlled crossover study found.
As in previous studies, however, the stimulant did improve seat work productivity and classroom behavior, but these benefits did not translate into better learning of individual academic learning units, according to William E. Pelham Jr., PhD, of the department of psychology at Florida International University in Miami, and colleagues.
The results were published online in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
The authors said the finding raises questions about how stimulant medication leads to improved academic achievement over time. “This is important given that many parents and pediatricians believe that medication will improve academic achievement; parents are more likely to pursue medication (vs. other treatment options) when they identify academic achievement as a primary goal for treatment. The current findings suggest this emphasis may be misguided,” they wrote.
In their view, efforts to improve learning in children with ADHD should focus on delivering effective academic instruction and support such as individualized educational plans rather than stimulant therapy.
The study
The study cohort consisted of 173 children aged 7-12 (77% male, 86% Hispanic) who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria for ADHD and were participating in a therapeutic summer camp classroom.
The experimental design was a triple-masked, within-subject, AB/BA crossover trial. Children completed two consecutive phases of daily, 25-minute instruction in both subject-area content (science and social studies) and vocabulary. Each phase was a standard instructional unit lasting for 3 weeks and lessons were given by credentialed teachers via small-group, evidence-based instruction.
Each child was randomized to receive daily osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) during either the first or second instructional phase and to receive placebo during the other.
Seat work referred to the amount of work a pupil completed in a fixed duration of independent work time, and classroom behavior referred to the frequency of violating classroom rules. Learning was measured by tests, and multilevel models were fit separately to the subject and vocabulary test scores, with four observations per child: pretest and posttest in the two academic subject areas.
The results showed that medication had large, salutary, statistically significant effects on children’s academic seat work productivity and classroom behavior on every single day of the instructional period.
Pupils completed 37% more arithmetic problems per minute when taking OROS-MPH and committed 53% fewer rule violations per hour. In terms of learning the material taught during instruction, however, tests showed that children learned the same amount of subject-area and vocabulary content whether they were taking OROS-MPH or placebo during the instructional period.
Consistent with previous studies, medication slightly helped to improve test scores when taken on the day of a test, but not enough to boost most children’s grades. For example, medication helped children increase on average 1.7 percentage points out of 100 on science and social studies tests.
“This finding has relevance for parents deciding whether to medicate their child for occasions such as a psychoeducational evaluation or high-stakes academic testing – while the effect size was small, findings suggest being medicated would improve scores,” the investigators wrote.
Sharing his perspective on the study but not involved in it, Herschel R. Lessin, MD, a pediatrician at The Children’s Medical Group in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and coauthor of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines on ADHD, said, “If you ignore the sensationalized headlines, this study is an interesting but preliminary first step, and justifies further research on the topic. It also has several potential defects, which the authors in fact address in the supplements.” The cohort size was small, for example, the doses of medication were very low, and the study took place in a controlled therapeutic setting – not the everyday classroom.
Furthermore, Dr. Lessin added, the study’s conclusions “are contrary to my 40 years of experience in treating ADHD. If they had used standard measures of assessment, as in previous studies, they would have found medication did impact learning. More research is clearly needed.”
In other comments, Holly K. Harris, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics-development at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, said the core symptoms of ADHD are primarily behavioral in nature, not academic learning related.
“Stimulant medications are targeting these core behavioral symptoms of ADHD ... but the goal of treatment is more than just the reduction of symptoms; it is to improve a child’s overall functioning so that they succeed at what is expected of them and avoid developing even more impairments,” Dr. Harris said, adding that symptom improvement can sometimes allow a child to learn better in the classroom and achieve more academically.
Children with ADHD may have diagnosed or undiagnosed comorbid learning disabilities, with one 2013 study suggesting a rate of 31%-45%.
With such learning disabilities being distinct from core behavioral symptoms, stimulant medications would not be expected to address a child’s learning disability. “In fact, best practice is for a child with ADHD who is not responding to stimulant medication (doctors might refer to this as complex ADHD) to undergo full individual evaluations either through the school system or an outside psychological assessment to assess for potential learning disabilities or other comorbid developmental/learning or psychiatric diagnosis,” Dr. Harris said.
Rather than changing prescribing patterns, she continued, pediatricians could consider advising parents to request learning evaluations through the school system if the child continues to struggle academically with no change in learning outcomes despite improvement in some behavioral outcomes.
As a reference, Dr. Harris recommended the Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics guidelines for complex ADHD.
This study was funded by the National Institute on Mental Health with additional support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the Institute of Education Sciences. Coauthor James Waxmonsky, MD, has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health, Supernus, and Pfizer and served on the advisory board for Iron Shore, NLS Pharma, and Purdue Pharma.
Extended-release methylphenidate (Concerta) had no effect on learning academic material taught in a small group of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a controlled crossover study found.
As in previous studies, however, the stimulant did improve seat work productivity and classroom behavior, but these benefits did not translate into better learning of individual academic learning units, according to William E. Pelham Jr., PhD, of the department of psychology at Florida International University in Miami, and colleagues.
The results were published online in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
The authors said the finding raises questions about how stimulant medication leads to improved academic achievement over time. “This is important given that many parents and pediatricians believe that medication will improve academic achievement; parents are more likely to pursue medication (vs. other treatment options) when they identify academic achievement as a primary goal for treatment. The current findings suggest this emphasis may be misguided,” they wrote.
In their view, efforts to improve learning in children with ADHD should focus on delivering effective academic instruction and support such as individualized educational plans rather than stimulant therapy.
The study
The study cohort consisted of 173 children aged 7-12 (77% male, 86% Hispanic) who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria for ADHD and were participating in a therapeutic summer camp classroom.
The experimental design was a triple-masked, within-subject, AB/BA crossover trial. Children completed two consecutive phases of daily, 25-minute instruction in both subject-area content (science and social studies) and vocabulary. Each phase was a standard instructional unit lasting for 3 weeks and lessons were given by credentialed teachers via small-group, evidence-based instruction.
Each child was randomized to receive daily osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) during either the first or second instructional phase and to receive placebo during the other.
Seat work referred to the amount of work a pupil completed in a fixed duration of independent work time, and classroom behavior referred to the frequency of violating classroom rules. Learning was measured by tests, and multilevel models were fit separately to the subject and vocabulary test scores, with four observations per child: pretest and posttest in the two academic subject areas.
The results showed that medication had large, salutary, statistically significant effects on children’s academic seat work productivity and classroom behavior on every single day of the instructional period.
Pupils completed 37% more arithmetic problems per minute when taking OROS-MPH and committed 53% fewer rule violations per hour. In terms of learning the material taught during instruction, however, tests showed that children learned the same amount of subject-area and vocabulary content whether they were taking OROS-MPH or placebo during the instructional period.
Consistent with previous studies, medication slightly helped to improve test scores when taken on the day of a test, but not enough to boost most children’s grades. For example, medication helped children increase on average 1.7 percentage points out of 100 on science and social studies tests.
“This finding has relevance for parents deciding whether to medicate their child for occasions such as a psychoeducational evaluation or high-stakes academic testing – while the effect size was small, findings suggest being medicated would improve scores,” the investigators wrote.
Sharing his perspective on the study but not involved in it, Herschel R. Lessin, MD, a pediatrician at The Children’s Medical Group in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and coauthor of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines on ADHD, said, “If you ignore the sensationalized headlines, this study is an interesting but preliminary first step, and justifies further research on the topic. It also has several potential defects, which the authors in fact address in the supplements.” The cohort size was small, for example, the doses of medication were very low, and the study took place in a controlled therapeutic setting – not the everyday classroom.
Furthermore, Dr. Lessin added, the study’s conclusions “are contrary to my 40 years of experience in treating ADHD. If they had used standard measures of assessment, as in previous studies, they would have found medication did impact learning. More research is clearly needed.”
In other comments, Holly K. Harris, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics-development at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, said the core symptoms of ADHD are primarily behavioral in nature, not academic learning related.
“Stimulant medications are targeting these core behavioral symptoms of ADHD ... but the goal of treatment is more than just the reduction of symptoms; it is to improve a child’s overall functioning so that they succeed at what is expected of them and avoid developing even more impairments,” Dr. Harris said, adding that symptom improvement can sometimes allow a child to learn better in the classroom and achieve more academically.
Children with ADHD may have diagnosed or undiagnosed comorbid learning disabilities, with one 2013 study suggesting a rate of 31%-45%.
With such learning disabilities being distinct from core behavioral symptoms, stimulant medications would not be expected to address a child’s learning disability. “In fact, best practice is for a child with ADHD who is not responding to stimulant medication (doctors might refer to this as complex ADHD) to undergo full individual evaluations either through the school system or an outside psychological assessment to assess for potential learning disabilities or other comorbid developmental/learning or psychiatric diagnosis,” Dr. Harris said.
Rather than changing prescribing patterns, she continued, pediatricians could consider advising parents to request learning evaluations through the school system if the child continues to struggle academically with no change in learning outcomes despite improvement in some behavioral outcomes.
As a reference, Dr. Harris recommended the Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics guidelines for complex ADHD.
This study was funded by the National Institute on Mental Health with additional support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the Institute of Education Sciences. Coauthor James Waxmonsky, MD, has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health, Supernus, and Pfizer and served on the advisory board for Iron Shore, NLS Pharma, and Purdue Pharma.
Extended-release methylphenidate (Concerta) had no effect on learning academic material taught in a small group of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a controlled crossover study found.
As in previous studies, however, the stimulant did improve seat work productivity and classroom behavior, but these benefits did not translate into better learning of individual academic learning units, according to William E. Pelham Jr., PhD, of the department of psychology at Florida International University in Miami, and colleagues.
The results were published online in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
The authors said the finding raises questions about how stimulant medication leads to improved academic achievement over time. “This is important given that many parents and pediatricians believe that medication will improve academic achievement; parents are more likely to pursue medication (vs. other treatment options) when they identify academic achievement as a primary goal for treatment. The current findings suggest this emphasis may be misguided,” they wrote.
In their view, efforts to improve learning in children with ADHD should focus on delivering effective academic instruction and support such as individualized educational plans rather than stimulant therapy.
The study
The study cohort consisted of 173 children aged 7-12 (77% male, 86% Hispanic) who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria for ADHD and were participating in a therapeutic summer camp classroom.
The experimental design was a triple-masked, within-subject, AB/BA crossover trial. Children completed two consecutive phases of daily, 25-minute instruction in both subject-area content (science and social studies) and vocabulary. Each phase was a standard instructional unit lasting for 3 weeks and lessons were given by credentialed teachers via small-group, evidence-based instruction.
Each child was randomized to receive daily osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) during either the first or second instructional phase and to receive placebo during the other.
Seat work referred to the amount of work a pupil completed in a fixed duration of independent work time, and classroom behavior referred to the frequency of violating classroom rules. Learning was measured by tests, and multilevel models were fit separately to the subject and vocabulary test scores, with four observations per child: pretest and posttest in the two academic subject areas.
The results showed that medication had large, salutary, statistically significant effects on children’s academic seat work productivity and classroom behavior on every single day of the instructional period.
Pupils completed 37% more arithmetic problems per minute when taking OROS-MPH and committed 53% fewer rule violations per hour. In terms of learning the material taught during instruction, however, tests showed that children learned the same amount of subject-area and vocabulary content whether they were taking OROS-MPH or placebo during the instructional period.
Consistent with previous studies, medication slightly helped to improve test scores when taken on the day of a test, but not enough to boost most children’s grades. For example, medication helped children increase on average 1.7 percentage points out of 100 on science and social studies tests.
“This finding has relevance for parents deciding whether to medicate their child for occasions such as a psychoeducational evaluation or high-stakes academic testing – while the effect size was small, findings suggest being medicated would improve scores,” the investigators wrote.
Sharing his perspective on the study but not involved in it, Herschel R. Lessin, MD, a pediatrician at The Children’s Medical Group in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and coauthor of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines on ADHD, said, “If you ignore the sensationalized headlines, this study is an interesting but preliminary first step, and justifies further research on the topic. It also has several potential defects, which the authors in fact address in the supplements.” The cohort size was small, for example, the doses of medication were very low, and the study took place in a controlled therapeutic setting – not the everyday classroom.
Furthermore, Dr. Lessin added, the study’s conclusions “are contrary to my 40 years of experience in treating ADHD. If they had used standard measures of assessment, as in previous studies, they would have found medication did impact learning. More research is clearly needed.”
In other comments, Holly K. Harris, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics-development at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, said the core symptoms of ADHD are primarily behavioral in nature, not academic learning related.
“Stimulant medications are targeting these core behavioral symptoms of ADHD ... but the goal of treatment is more than just the reduction of symptoms; it is to improve a child’s overall functioning so that they succeed at what is expected of them and avoid developing even more impairments,” Dr. Harris said, adding that symptom improvement can sometimes allow a child to learn better in the classroom and achieve more academically.
Children with ADHD may have diagnosed or undiagnosed comorbid learning disabilities, with one 2013 study suggesting a rate of 31%-45%.
With such learning disabilities being distinct from core behavioral symptoms, stimulant medications would not be expected to address a child’s learning disability. “In fact, best practice is for a child with ADHD who is not responding to stimulant medication (doctors might refer to this as complex ADHD) to undergo full individual evaluations either through the school system or an outside psychological assessment to assess for potential learning disabilities or other comorbid developmental/learning or psychiatric diagnosis,” Dr. Harris said.
Rather than changing prescribing patterns, she continued, pediatricians could consider advising parents to request learning evaluations through the school system if the child continues to struggle academically with no change in learning outcomes despite improvement in some behavioral outcomes.
As a reference, Dr. Harris recommended the Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics guidelines for complex ADHD.
This study was funded by the National Institute on Mental Health with additional support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the Institute of Education Sciences. Coauthor James Waxmonsky, MD, has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health, Supernus, and Pfizer and served on the advisory board for Iron Shore, NLS Pharma, and Purdue Pharma.
FROM JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
Video game obsession: Definitions and best treatments remain elusive
NEW ORLEANS – Research into video game addiction is turning up new insights, and some treatments seem to make a difference, according to addiction psychiatry experts speaking at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. Still, understanding remains limited amid a general lack of clarity about definitions, measurements, and the most effective treatment strategies.
“Video games have the potential to be uniquely addictive, and it’s difficult to come up with treatment modalities that you can use for kids who have access to these things 24/7 on their mobile phones or laptops,” psychiatrist James C. Sherer, MD, of NYU Langone Health, said during the May 22 session, “Internet Gaming Disorder: From Harmless Fun to Dependence,” at the meeting. “It makes treating this a really complicated endeavor.”
The number of people with so-called Internet gaming disorder is unknown, but video games remain wildly popular among adults and children of all genders. According to a 2021 survey by Common Sense Media, U.S. individuals aged 8-12 and 13-18 spent an average of 1:27 hours and 1:46 hours per day, respectively, playing video games.
“Video games are an extremely important part of normal social networking among kids, and there’s a huge amount of social pressure to be good,” Dr. Sherer said. “If you’re in a particularly affluent neighborhood, it’s not unheard of for a parent to hire a coach to make their kid good at a game like Fortnite so they impress the other kids.”
The 2013 edition of the DSM-5 doesn’t list Internet gaming disorder as a mental illness but suggests that the topic warrants more research and evaluation, Dr. Sherer said.
Why are video games so addicting? According to Dr. Sherer, they’re simply designed that way. Game manufacturers “employ psychologists and behaviorists whose only job is to look at the game and determine what colors and what sounds are most likely to make you spend a little bit extra.” And with the help of the Internet, video games have evolved over the past 40 years to encourage users to make multiple purchases on single games such as Candy Crush instead of simply buying, say, a single 1980s-style Atari cartridge.
According to Dr. Sherer, research suggests that video games place users into something called the “flow state,” which a recent review article published in Frontiers in Psychology describes as “a state of full task engagement that is accompanied with low-levels of self-referential thinking” and “highly relevant for human performance and well-being.”
Diagnosing gaming addiction
How can psychiatrists diagnose video gaming addiction? Dr. Sherer, who is himself a devoted gamer, advised against focusing too much on time spent gaming in determining whether a patient has a problem. Instead, keep in mind that excessive gaming can displace exercise and normal socialization, he said, and lead to worsening mood.
Rober Aziz, MD, also of NYU Langone Health, suggested asking these questions: What types of games do you play? How long do you spend playing? What’s your reason for playing? What’s the meaning of your character choices? Does this game interfere with school or work? Have you neglected your self-care to play more?
He recommends other questions, too: Have you tried to limit your play time without success? How uncomfortable do you get if you must stop in the middle of playing? Do you get agitated if servers go down unexpectedly?
“There’s actually a lot of parallel here to other addictions that we’re very familiar with,” he said.
According to Dr. Sherer, it’s helpful to know that children who have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder tend to struggle with gaming addiction the most. He highlighted a brain-scan study in the Journal of Attention Disorders that found that patients with gaming addiction and ADHD had less functional connectivity from the cortex to the subcortex compared to matched controls. But treatment helped increase connectivity in those with good prognoses.
The findings are “heartening,” he said. “Basically, if you’re treating ADHD, you’re treating Internet gaming disorder. And if you’re treating Internet gaming disorder, you’re treating ADHD.”
As for treatments, the speakers agreed that there is little research to point in the right direction regarding gaming addiction specifically.
According to Dr. Aziz, research has suggested that bupropion, methylphenidate, and escitalopram can be helpful. In terms of nondrug approaches, he recommends directing patients toward games that have distinct beginnings, middles, and ends instead of endlessly providing rewards. One such game is “Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild” on the Nintendo Switch platform, he said.
On the psychotherapy front, Dr. Aziz said, “reducing use rather than abstinence should be the treatment goal.” Research suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy may not help patients in the long term, he said. Other strategies, he said, include specific approaches known as “CBT for Internet addiction” and “motivational interviewing for Internet gaming disorder.”
Gaming addiction treatment centers have also popped up in the U.S., he said, and there’s now an organization called Gaming Addicts Anonymous.
The good news is that “there is a lot of active research that’s being done” into treating video game addiction, said psychiatrist Anil Thomas, MD, program director of the addiction psychiatry fellowship at NYU Langone Health and moderator of the APA session. “We just have to wait to see what the results are.”
NEW ORLEANS – Research into video game addiction is turning up new insights, and some treatments seem to make a difference, according to addiction psychiatry experts speaking at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. Still, understanding remains limited amid a general lack of clarity about definitions, measurements, and the most effective treatment strategies.
“Video games have the potential to be uniquely addictive, and it’s difficult to come up with treatment modalities that you can use for kids who have access to these things 24/7 on their mobile phones or laptops,” psychiatrist James C. Sherer, MD, of NYU Langone Health, said during the May 22 session, “Internet Gaming Disorder: From Harmless Fun to Dependence,” at the meeting. “It makes treating this a really complicated endeavor.”
The number of people with so-called Internet gaming disorder is unknown, but video games remain wildly popular among adults and children of all genders. According to a 2021 survey by Common Sense Media, U.S. individuals aged 8-12 and 13-18 spent an average of 1:27 hours and 1:46 hours per day, respectively, playing video games.
“Video games are an extremely important part of normal social networking among kids, and there’s a huge amount of social pressure to be good,” Dr. Sherer said. “If you’re in a particularly affluent neighborhood, it’s not unheard of for a parent to hire a coach to make their kid good at a game like Fortnite so they impress the other kids.”
The 2013 edition of the DSM-5 doesn’t list Internet gaming disorder as a mental illness but suggests that the topic warrants more research and evaluation, Dr. Sherer said.
Why are video games so addicting? According to Dr. Sherer, they’re simply designed that way. Game manufacturers “employ psychologists and behaviorists whose only job is to look at the game and determine what colors and what sounds are most likely to make you spend a little bit extra.” And with the help of the Internet, video games have evolved over the past 40 years to encourage users to make multiple purchases on single games such as Candy Crush instead of simply buying, say, a single 1980s-style Atari cartridge.
According to Dr. Sherer, research suggests that video games place users into something called the “flow state,” which a recent review article published in Frontiers in Psychology describes as “a state of full task engagement that is accompanied with low-levels of self-referential thinking” and “highly relevant for human performance and well-being.”
Diagnosing gaming addiction
How can psychiatrists diagnose video gaming addiction? Dr. Sherer, who is himself a devoted gamer, advised against focusing too much on time spent gaming in determining whether a patient has a problem. Instead, keep in mind that excessive gaming can displace exercise and normal socialization, he said, and lead to worsening mood.
Rober Aziz, MD, also of NYU Langone Health, suggested asking these questions: What types of games do you play? How long do you spend playing? What’s your reason for playing? What’s the meaning of your character choices? Does this game interfere with school or work? Have you neglected your self-care to play more?
He recommends other questions, too: Have you tried to limit your play time without success? How uncomfortable do you get if you must stop in the middle of playing? Do you get agitated if servers go down unexpectedly?
“There’s actually a lot of parallel here to other addictions that we’re very familiar with,” he said.
According to Dr. Sherer, it’s helpful to know that children who have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder tend to struggle with gaming addiction the most. He highlighted a brain-scan study in the Journal of Attention Disorders that found that patients with gaming addiction and ADHD had less functional connectivity from the cortex to the subcortex compared to matched controls. But treatment helped increase connectivity in those with good prognoses.
The findings are “heartening,” he said. “Basically, if you’re treating ADHD, you’re treating Internet gaming disorder. And if you’re treating Internet gaming disorder, you’re treating ADHD.”
As for treatments, the speakers agreed that there is little research to point in the right direction regarding gaming addiction specifically.
According to Dr. Aziz, research has suggested that bupropion, methylphenidate, and escitalopram can be helpful. In terms of nondrug approaches, he recommends directing patients toward games that have distinct beginnings, middles, and ends instead of endlessly providing rewards. One such game is “Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild” on the Nintendo Switch platform, he said.
On the psychotherapy front, Dr. Aziz said, “reducing use rather than abstinence should be the treatment goal.” Research suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy may not help patients in the long term, he said. Other strategies, he said, include specific approaches known as “CBT for Internet addiction” and “motivational interviewing for Internet gaming disorder.”
Gaming addiction treatment centers have also popped up in the U.S., he said, and there’s now an organization called Gaming Addicts Anonymous.
The good news is that “there is a lot of active research that’s being done” into treating video game addiction, said psychiatrist Anil Thomas, MD, program director of the addiction psychiatry fellowship at NYU Langone Health and moderator of the APA session. “We just have to wait to see what the results are.”
NEW ORLEANS – Research into video game addiction is turning up new insights, and some treatments seem to make a difference, according to addiction psychiatry experts speaking at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. Still, understanding remains limited amid a general lack of clarity about definitions, measurements, and the most effective treatment strategies.
“Video games have the potential to be uniquely addictive, and it’s difficult to come up with treatment modalities that you can use for kids who have access to these things 24/7 on their mobile phones or laptops,” psychiatrist James C. Sherer, MD, of NYU Langone Health, said during the May 22 session, “Internet Gaming Disorder: From Harmless Fun to Dependence,” at the meeting. “It makes treating this a really complicated endeavor.”
The number of people with so-called Internet gaming disorder is unknown, but video games remain wildly popular among adults and children of all genders. According to a 2021 survey by Common Sense Media, U.S. individuals aged 8-12 and 13-18 spent an average of 1:27 hours and 1:46 hours per day, respectively, playing video games.
“Video games are an extremely important part of normal social networking among kids, and there’s a huge amount of social pressure to be good,” Dr. Sherer said. “If you’re in a particularly affluent neighborhood, it’s not unheard of for a parent to hire a coach to make their kid good at a game like Fortnite so they impress the other kids.”
The 2013 edition of the DSM-5 doesn’t list Internet gaming disorder as a mental illness but suggests that the topic warrants more research and evaluation, Dr. Sherer said.
Why are video games so addicting? According to Dr. Sherer, they’re simply designed that way. Game manufacturers “employ psychologists and behaviorists whose only job is to look at the game and determine what colors and what sounds are most likely to make you spend a little bit extra.” And with the help of the Internet, video games have evolved over the past 40 years to encourage users to make multiple purchases on single games such as Candy Crush instead of simply buying, say, a single 1980s-style Atari cartridge.
According to Dr. Sherer, research suggests that video games place users into something called the “flow state,” which a recent review article published in Frontiers in Psychology describes as “a state of full task engagement that is accompanied with low-levels of self-referential thinking” and “highly relevant for human performance and well-being.”
Diagnosing gaming addiction
How can psychiatrists diagnose video gaming addiction? Dr. Sherer, who is himself a devoted gamer, advised against focusing too much on time spent gaming in determining whether a patient has a problem. Instead, keep in mind that excessive gaming can displace exercise and normal socialization, he said, and lead to worsening mood.
Rober Aziz, MD, also of NYU Langone Health, suggested asking these questions: What types of games do you play? How long do you spend playing? What’s your reason for playing? What’s the meaning of your character choices? Does this game interfere with school or work? Have you neglected your self-care to play more?
He recommends other questions, too: Have you tried to limit your play time without success? How uncomfortable do you get if you must stop in the middle of playing? Do you get agitated if servers go down unexpectedly?
“There’s actually a lot of parallel here to other addictions that we’re very familiar with,” he said.
According to Dr. Sherer, it’s helpful to know that children who have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder tend to struggle with gaming addiction the most. He highlighted a brain-scan study in the Journal of Attention Disorders that found that patients with gaming addiction and ADHD had less functional connectivity from the cortex to the subcortex compared to matched controls. But treatment helped increase connectivity in those with good prognoses.
The findings are “heartening,” he said. “Basically, if you’re treating ADHD, you’re treating Internet gaming disorder. And if you’re treating Internet gaming disorder, you’re treating ADHD.”
As for treatments, the speakers agreed that there is little research to point in the right direction regarding gaming addiction specifically.
According to Dr. Aziz, research has suggested that bupropion, methylphenidate, and escitalopram can be helpful. In terms of nondrug approaches, he recommends directing patients toward games that have distinct beginnings, middles, and ends instead of endlessly providing rewards. One such game is “Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild” on the Nintendo Switch platform, he said.
On the psychotherapy front, Dr. Aziz said, “reducing use rather than abstinence should be the treatment goal.” Research suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy may not help patients in the long term, he said. Other strategies, he said, include specific approaches known as “CBT for Internet addiction” and “motivational interviewing for Internet gaming disorder.”
Gaming addiction treatment centers have also popped up in the U.S., he said, and there’s now an organization called Gaming Addicts Anonymous.
The good news is that “there is a lot of active research that’s being done” into treating video game addiction, said psychiatrist Anil Thomas, MD, program director of the addiction psychiatry fellowship at NYU Langone Health and moderator of the APA session. “We just have to wait to see what the results are.”
AT APA 2022